I draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 11, 12, 19 to 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 38, 44 and 48. If the House agrees to any of those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2

Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment (a) in lieu, and consequential Government amendment (b).

Lords amendments 3 to 12, 15, 25 to 27, 53 to 59, 78, 90, 91 and 94.

I thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), from whom I have inherited the Bill, my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, for his excellent stewardship of the Bill through the other place, and Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of the Bill, as I now seek to guide its journey to a safe conclusion this week.

In disagreeing with the Lords amendment, I shall also speak to our amendment (a) in lieu and the other Lords amendments in this group with which we agree. It will help the House if I give some brief background. The House will be aware that our policies for lone parents are based on the idea of family-friendly working. We rely on two key principles—that work is the best route out of poverty, and that parents, especially lone parents, must be allowed to fulfil their responsibilities to their children.

On the former point, we are mindful that the longer people are out of work, the more difficult it is to get a job. It is therefore vital that support be provided early, to help address the barriers to work. That is what we mean by work-related activity. We do not mean work; lone parents will not be required to take up employment until their youngest child is seven. We mean training, CV writing, help with literacy and numeracy and financial advice—overcoming a range of obstacles that often hold people back from helping themselves. Indeed, we mean the range of support offered so successfully in the new deal for lone parents, which has got 625,000 lone parents into work in the last 11 years. But it is equally important that this support must be convenient. It must come second to the welfare of the child, and depend on locally available affordable childcare. It must also allow time to drop off and pick up children from school and nursery.

Foremost in the amendments is the requirement that the well-being of a customer’s child is always taken into account when a personal adviser and a parent agree the steps that they will take to prepare for, or move into, work when completing an action plan or, for lone parents with older children, a jobseeker’s agreement. Here we apply a definition of well-being found elsewhere in legislation that takes into account a child’s physical and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by them to society; and their social and economic well-being. These are covered in amendments 8, 27 and 54.

There has been much debate on good cause, and what is considered to be good cause for failing to undertake a work-related activity. As a result we have taken the opportunity to outline in primary legislation some of the most important things that should always be considered when deciding on good cause for failing to undertake work-related activity. Claimants of income replacement benefits will not be directed to undertake medical or surgical treatment to meet their work-related activity requirements. However, the amendments permit such customers to undertake such activity on a voluntary basis with informed consent. We feel that that is important, especially where an individual has a health condition that is in itself a barrier to returning to work. As a result, we believe that they should receive, on a voluntary basis, the appropriate help and support to make a return to work possible, such as counselling or physiotherapy if that is something they and their adviser agree on.

To ensure that customers are not penalised if they change their minds about the decision, we would allow them to fulfil their requirement to undertake work-related activity by completing another activity on their action plan. This change is covered by Lords amendments 9, 15 and 58.

Also, after listening to the views of both Houses, we have decided to introduce amendments to make it clear that good cause considerations must take into account the availability of childcare. In practice this already happens, but we want to put that principle beyond doubt and ensure that it is protected for the future. This is covered by Lords amendments 10, 26 and 78.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify the situation in Scotland, where the Government do not have the administrative responsibility for the provision of childcare? Will there be full co-operation with the Scottish Government, who may or may not be able to replicate the child care coverage that exists in other parts of the UK, and will that be taken into consideration so that lone parents in Scotland will be treated in an even-handed and equal way in comparison with those in the rest of the UK?

I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. She and other colleagues from Scotland and Wales have been assiduous in raising these concerns to ensure that the legislation does not disadvantage lone parents in those parts of the country. Indeed, I have had conversations with Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the concerns about child care arrangements being different. That is one of the important reasons for introducing those three amendments. I hope that reassures my right hon. Friend.

We have also introduced amendments to define the policy boundaries for lone parents and to build on previous flexibilities that take into account their caring responsibilities for their children. The amendments would set out clearly in the Bill that only lone parents on income-replacement benefits who have a youngest child aged between three and six will be required to undertake work-related activity. They put in primary legislation our intention that lone parents whose youngest child is under three will not be required to undertake any work-related activity.

The amendments also place in primary legislation an assurance that lone parents whose youngest child is under seven will not be required to meet the full job-seeking conditions for jobseeker’s allowance, but instead will be able to claim income support, or modified jobseeker’s allowance, until their youngest child is seven. They remove the requirement for lone parents whose youngest child is under one and who are in receipt of an income-replacement benefit to attend work-focused interviews. They also introduce flexibilities to allow lone parents with children between three and six who are required to undertake work-related activity to restrict the hours in which they do so.

It is intended that this flexibility will be used to allow lone parents of children up to the age of 12 to restrict their hours of availability so that they fit around their children’s schooling or formal child care, or around hours in which locally provided, free, part-time nursery places are available. These measures are provided by Lords amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 90, 91 and 94.

We have also introduced an amendment that enables the job-seeking requirements for jobseeker’s allowance recipients who have been the victims of domestic violence to be temporarily suspended for 13 weeks. Under this amendment, they will not be required to enter into a jobseeker’s agreement if one is not already in place, and they will not be required to be available for work or actively to seek work during this difficult time. That is covered in Lords amendment 25. I hope that the House will agree that the package of amendments we have introduced means that parents, especially lone parents, will have the flexibility to balance the activities that they will be required to undertake with their unique family circumstances.

We are also introducing a new, more sensitive, sanctions regime.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will happily give way before setting out, at a little length, the new sanctions regime.

I recently wrote to my right hon. Friend about a constituent of mine who is a lone parent with five children, three of whom have conditions including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Asperger’s and Tourette’s. She is a carer—and indeed, she has a carer for herself, who is one of her children. As a carer, she is not required to attend work preparation, but she is required to attend six-monthly work-focused interviews. I have inquired of Jobcentre Plus, and an action plan has never been produced for her because it is clear that while she has responsibility for the children, she will never be able to work. The six-monthly visits to her Jobcentre Plus are, however, extremely onerous for her. I have asked whether some flexibility might be given to the jobcentre so that it could have the discretion to waive that requirement.

I think that no detail has been omitted from that intervention, and I hope that subsequent interventions will be shorter, rather than longer.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) has written to me setting out those details at even greater length than in her excellent intervention. I will need to reflect on this. In preparing a White Paper that will be published in the next few weeks, we have been examining the issue of flexibility, and the extent to which we can flex the regime so that it can be more tailored to the personal circumstances of customers on jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance and other benefits. In the change we have made for lone parents whose youngest child is under one, we have made it clear that there is no merit in requiring such lone parents to come in for a work-focused interview if no meaningful action follows from that. I am advised that if my hon. Friend’s constituent gets carer’s allowance, she is exempt from the conditionality. I clearly need to look at the details of the case and get back to my hon. Friend with a proper response.

The Minister started by setting out all the positive things that the Government are going to do to engage, and all the support that lone parents are going to get. However, these proposals are, in essence, about the stick; they are not about the carrot. They are about saying what punishment will be meted out to a lone parent with a three or four-year-old child if they do not do what the Government want them to do. Is it the Government’s view that lone parents with children of that age are simply too stupid to see the good that this engagement will do for them, and so need to be threatened to persuade them to take it up? If it was all so good and so positive for them, why would they not take it up anyway? Why do we need a threat to make them do that?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have set out a range of positive measures that we are putting in the Bill. He talks in terms of “sticks” and “carrots”. As he knows, it is normal in social security legislation to put the sticks in primary legislation and leave the carrots in secondary legislation and in other action. What is unusual is that we are putting the carrots—to use his language—in primary legislation, in the Bill.

Let us consider the substance of what the hon. Gentleman is asking about, and our disagreement with the Lords, which I was about to discuss. I believe, as I did when I took the legislation to raise the education participation age through Parliament, that there are circumstances in which one wants to make it more uncomfortable for people to do the wrong thing and more comfortable for them to do the right thing. As I shall go on to say, I think that in the case of some parents, it is in the interests of those individuals, of their children—in terms of tackling child poverty—and of the country as a whole, if they are actively encouraged to receive the help and support that will come about as a result of the conditionality that we want to introduce.

My right hon. Friend talks about making things uncomfortable for people who will not do the right thing. Do not most Members find that the real problem is that it is the children of that mother who are made uncomfortable? However feckless or undeserving the mother is in his terms, it is the children who will suffer when he imposes his financial sanctions.

Naturally, I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I hope that she also listened carefully to what I set out. My starting point was the change that we made to the legislation in the Lords that ensures that the well-being of the child comes first. Any notion that children will suffer is dealt with through that amendment, which is now on the face of the Bill. In respect of financial sanctions, as I have set out, we now have a much longer and deeper process to go through to consider the personal circumstances of the individual. Only if an individual was wilfully ignoring the sanctions regime and the opportunities available to them would any financial sanction come into play.

The Minister mentioned child poverty immediately before he took that intervention. Does he accept that the fact that a parent has gone into work does not automatically mean that the child is not in poverty any more?

In many ways, that misses the point. We are talking about work-related activity, not work. There is no requirement for parents whose youngest children are under the age of seven to take up employment. We are talking about work-related activities and receiving support such as that which lone parents receive in the new deal for lone parents. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position is on that, although I know that the official Opposition want to get rid of it.

Lords amendment 2 amends the Bill so that financial sanctions could not be imposed upon a “single” parent in receipt of income support with a child under five if they failed to undertake work-related activity. The amendment would not achieve the purpose that I believe it was intended to achieve. “Single” is not defined in social security legislation, so there is a risk that it could be interpreted to mean a non-resident parent, rather than the lone parent who has caring responsibility for the child. We must therefore amend the Bill today or risk an absent parent using the measure as an excuse to avoid getting back to work.

Nevertheless, to set that drafting error to one side, in both Houses there has been vigorous debate—we hear some echoes of it now—about when, based on the age of the youngest child, we should start requiring lone parents to undertake work-related activity. Based on those debates, and on the changes we have made to put the safeguards that I have described on the face of the Bill, we still believe that starting the process when a lone parent’s youngest child is aged three is right, not only because there is normally a strong foundation of child care provision available for children in this age range, but because it will allow them gradually to build their confidence and skills at a pace that suits them over four years, rather than being expected to cram in the work-related activity that they need to undertake when their youngest child is five to six.

Some 76 per cent. of non-working lone parents use the free child care offered for three and four-year-olds that was developed by this Government. Most schools now have reception classes for four-year-olds. Surely it is reasonable to ask parents to use a fraction of that time to start to get ready for work? For example, 74 per cent. of non-working lone parents do not hold any qualifications. Three quarters use the free child care; three quarters have no qualifications. Why would not we ask them to take up the offer of free education to get a basic literacy and numeracy qualification in some of the time when their children are receiving an early years education?

The Conservatives, according to what their leader said today, think that

“the first step is to redistribute power and control form the central state and its agencies to individuals and local communities. That way we can create the opportunity for people to take responsibility.”

If that is what they truly believe—if this is to be a new fresh start for the Tories on poverty—they have to support the Government amendment today. Work-related activity for lone parents of children aged three to five is precisely what the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is talking about; it is creating

“the opportunity for people to take responsibility.”

rose—

I challenge the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), as he rises to intervene, to say that he will agree with us and be consistent with the approach of his party leader.

I think that we have been consistent about this matter. The Minister seems somewhat uncomfortable talking about sanctions affecting very young children, but I do want to ask him a question. There is not much between us otherwise, but why is it so important to have financial sanctions that can be imposed on parents with children as young as three and four? If the sanctions became available when children were five, that would still leave two years for the parents to be engaged in work-related activity with the threat of sanctions behind them. Why is it so necessary to have sanctions when children are so young?

It is worth the House noting that the Opposition believe that it is appropriate to have financial sanctions in respect of work-focused interviews for lone parents whose youngest children are from three to five years old. They agree that financial sanctions are appropriate in those circumstances, but in his question the hon. Gentleman wondered about work-related activity. If he believes in the work-focused interview, which sets out an action plan for parents but has no means of enforcing that plan, he is being inconsistent.

I have said already that I believe that we need to have the opportunity to configure the support for longer than two years. Many lone parents face substantial problems, and that means that we must be able to configure the support on offer to enable them to overcome the obstacles to getting into work. It would appear that not only are the Opposition inconsistent but they are not serious about tackling poverty. If they are serious about poverty, why are they voting against this proposed action to cut child poverty? If they are serious about responsibility, why are they voting to take away the responsibility for lone parents whose children are in education to take up the support that they need?

We know that the Opposition want to abolish the new deal for lone parents, and now they want to oppose creating the opportunity for people to take responsibility. However, we appreciate the concerns raised by stakeholders, and those raised by Labour Members. They are nervous that our good intentions may not work in practice so—ever reasonable—I am seeking the House’s agreement to offer, in lieu of the Lords amendment, an amendment of our own that would provide yet one more safeguard.

The House will be aware that the Bill serves to set out the framework of the work-related activity proposals that we wish to test before national implementation, and that the detail of those proposals will be set out in regulations. The amendment that I propose would require all work-related activity regulations, in so far as they relate to lone parents with children under seven, to be brought back to the House for further affirmative debate before being introduced nationally. That should reassure the House that passing the Bill will not have the effect of shutting the door on further debate about work-related activity for this customer group. Any regulations made within five years after royal assent will come back to the House and the other place, and Members of both Houses will have every opportunity to consider whether work-related activity is working in practice.

I believe that it is right for lone parents to begin the journey towards work in good time, so that they can take positive steps to prepare for rejoining the labour market and help take themselves and their families out of poverty. To remove their responsibility to start to get ready for work early would also remove the responsibility of Jobcentre Plus to provide support from an early stage.

That would be wrong. It would be a backward step, and could only come from the motivation to save money at the expense of those who need support the most. That may be the Opposition’s agenda, but it is not ours. We are proud of the new deal for lone parents that the Opposition want to abolish. We are proud that more lone parents are getting into work, and that they see that these measures are necessary if we are to continue our good work on tackling child poverty through work. I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition are really serious about poverty, or whether with them it is all talk and no action.

I urge the House to overturn Lords amendment 2, and to support Government amendment (a) in lieu.

May I begin by welcoming the Minister to the proceedings on this Bill? He has obviously spent some time studying the provisions, and he will know from previous debates that we on this side of the House have expressed broad support for the Bill and its objectives. We support many of the measures in the Bill—as we should, indeed, since we suggested many of them before the Government took them up. I admire the dexterity with which the Minister has approached the Lords amendments, and the main issue that lies at the heart of them.

The House could be forgiven for forgetting about Lords amendment 2 altogether, given how long it took the Minister to come to it. From the outset, therefore, I want to make it clear that this is the issue that lies between the parties as far as these Lords amendments are concerned. I shall take a little time to go through the issue, as I think that the Minister will have to accept, when he hears what we have to say about it, that we have been completely consistent. We welcome many of the safeguards, but he has spent such a long time putting them in place and speaking about them that it makes one wonder what is the point of the sanction in the first place. We remain uncomfortable about that sanction for reasons that I shall explain.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes, I shall certainly give way. The right hon. Lady has experience of these matters.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the noble Lord Freud, who is no doubt watching these deliberations from on high somewhere, said that the Conservative party was not against financial sanctions? Indeed, he said:

“Our amendment is drawn deliberately narrowly”

and that his party was not against

“established financial sanctions for not complying with its—

the regime’s—

“rather light requirements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 835.]

There is an inherent contradiction in the Opposition’s case, which makes me think that it is more about opportunism than about supporting lone parents.

The right hon. Lady has made her point, but may I draw her attention to Lords amendment 2? It says:

“Nothing in this section shall cause any financial sanction to be imposed in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age.”

That amendment was moved by my noble Friend Lord Freud, and it could not be more explicit. The right hon. Lady knows that we have been consistent throughout and argued that five years old should be the age at which work-related requirements are followed up with sanctions. We have been quite consistent about that throughout the Bill’s passage in this place, as I think she knows, and in the other place; and the issue comes before the House today because of that amendment.

I shall take the House through what is proposed. Parents of pre-school age children could be required to undertake work-related activity. They could be directed to undertake work-related activities by advisers. Presumably that means that their advisers may direct them to undertake specific work-related activities. After the process that the Minister has proposed, they could still face sanctions—including financial sanctions—if they fail to comply, as such sanctions remain part of the Government’s arrangements. I wonder what the purpose is of these financial sanctions. The Minister did not give a sufficient explanation of why sanctions are considered to be so necessary for parents of children as young as three and four. We heard such a lot about safeguards, and that makes me think that something in the detail of the Bill is wrong. More and more safeguards have been added to the Bill during its passage through this House and another place.

Why are the Government so stuck on this provision, and why are they so obstinate in their refusal to consider the issues at stake? Is the possible application of sanctions justified by what is at stake? After all, when the youngest child reaches the age of five, there will still be two years in which the lone parent can be engaged in work-related and progression-to-work activities before the child reaches the age at which the parent will be migrated from income support to jobseeker’s allowance. We accept that that group may include many lone parents who face barriers to work and are not work ready, but two years will amount to a significant period in which they can be helped, backed throughout by the threat of sanctions, from which we do not demur. That will come on top of whatever other help they have received in the preceding period from the ages of three to five years, not backed by financial sanctions.

We must consider whether the attainment of the child’s school age is the appropriate point at which lone parents can be fully engaged in the Government’s progression-to-work regime in its full rigour, backed by sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) will know, we have been consistent in advocating the age of five and have argued for that throughout. In Committee, I moved an amendment on those lines, which was defeated. We moved an amendment on Report when the matter came back before the House, and it was voted on and defeated. Therefore, prior to the passing of the Lords amendment, the age stood at three at which parents would come into the progression-to-work regime in its full rigour, with directions and mandatory work-related activities, and backed by sanctions. The Lords amendment has altered that so that the age now stands at five, which we think is more sensible.

We must set this in the context of the progression-to-work model set out by the Government in their response to the Gregg report, which, notwithstanding everything that the Minister has said, remains the Government’s policy. I look to him to demur from what I am saying if that is not the case. We are told that lone parents with children aged one to two years are:

“Required to attend Work Focused Interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan or any other activities, although they will be encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis”.

Once the child has turned three, the lone parent is:

“Required to follow the progression to work regime based around Work Focused Interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction”.

On any view, the full rigour of the regime kicks in at three. The Lords amendment suggests that at least these parents should not face the liability for financial sanctions under the regime.

The Minister announced as a great concession amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment. I think that he possibly put it a little strongly when he suggested that it was a great safeguard. I am not saying that the amendment is unwelcome, but I invite the House to consider it and set it against the issues at stake. The Minister did not deal with it in great detail, so it might assist Members if I provide a little more detail to enable them to assess how much value should be attached to it. It requires the affirmative resolution procedure to be followed in respect of regulations imposing work-related activities on lone parents of children under seven. Although that is welcome in itself, it does not address the questions that arise from the motion on amendment 2. The amendment in lieu deals with work-related activities to be imposed on the lone parents in question, not the sanctions that are to be imposed as a result of a breach of those requirements.

I do not want to sound cynical, but affirmative resolution procedures are invariably not worth the paper they are written on. By the time the matters in question come back to the House, people have forgotten the details of the original debate and the votes are whipped, so they are worthless undertakings. They should not be allowed to deflect Members from the issue at stake today, which is women with children as young as three having financial sanctions imposed on them because of the Government’s proposal.

I think I was a little kinder than the hon. Lady in what I said about the value of affirmative resolutions. As a parliamentarian, I always welcome the affirmative procedure and argue in favour of it when considering Bills, but one needs a tinge of realism when discussing the subject.

I am always in favour of parliamentary debates, but following the hon. Lady’s point I would say that even when the regulations come before the House, they will not deal with the issue in question. The affirmative resolution procedure will relate to the regulations, not to the sanctions that will back them up. We will have no say on the sanctions. Also, the affirmative resolution procedure will be in respect of requirements for children under seven. The question is what will happen to people with children under five, not under seven, so I respectfully argue that the amendment in lieu does not make a great deal of difference. The Minister put it a little too strongly when he said that it was the necessary safeguard in lieu of the Lords amendment, because it does not address the question at all. It is a bit of a misrepresentation to say that it is an amendment in lieu in the sense of forming a satisfactory replacement for the amendment from the House of Lords. It is off the point altogether.

Similarly, the Government have introduced other amendments, which the Minister spoke about at great length earlier. I broadly welcome many of them, but again I question whether they address the point at issue between us. The amendments that the Government introduced in another place were put forward on the basis of addressing the concerns that have been expressed about the requirements made of lone parents with younger children. Many such concerns were widely expressed in another place. The Government brought forward amendments described as a package of concessions—I believe that the Minister himself has described them as such—so let us see how good the concessions are on the point about protecting lone parents of younger children from financial sanctions.

Lords amendments 3 and 4 are Government amendments designed to ensure that lone parents with a child under three could not be required to undertake work-related activity. However, that is not a change in policy, because the Government have always stated that that was their intention. They said that right from the start and throughout Committee stage in this place. They stated that their intention was that lone parents with children under three would not be subject to the full regime of work progression. The amendments put that policy intention into law, but they do not in any way answer the question of what should happen to lone parents of children aged between three and five, which is what Lords amendment 2 is about.

Similarly, Lords amendment 5 would give lone parents entitled to income support a right to restrict the hours for which they will be required to undertake work-related activity. We are told that it could be used to enable them to restrict such activities to their child’s hours of schooling or formal child care. Even then, if they had made that restriction and were found not to be in compliance with the requirements, they would face financial sanctions. That amendment therefore does not address that question either.

Lords amendments 10, 26 and 78 provide that regulations prescribing just cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities must expressly state that availability of child care and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition will always be considered. Again, however, we had already been told that the availability of child care was to be taken into account as a matter of policy. The Minister introduced that as a concession today, but we were told that in Committee by his then ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He told the Committee, before the Bill went to the other place that

“the absence of such provision will be taken fully into account when discussing the details of an individual’s work-related activity at three.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 February 2009; c. 120.]

That has been included in the Bill, but it would have been the Government’s policy in any case. I will leave the House to judge the value of that concession as part of the package of concessions.

I rise briefly to support Lords amendment 2 and reluctantly to oppose those on the Treasury Bench. I shall make three points, the first of which is on the politics of the amendment.

When I first read the amendment, which effectively raises from three to five the age that children must attain before their parents are subject to benefits sanction if they are not enthusiastic enough about work-related activity, I had been following the debate in outline rather than in detail, and I wondered who had made the proposal in the other place: at first, I thought it might be a liberal bishop with a social conscience; then I thought it might be a former Labour MP rocking the boat, perish the thought; finally I thought it might be an independent peer—perhaps someone with a long record in the voluntary sector—who felt strongly about the issue. To my amazement, who should have proposed this amendment in the other place but the noble Lord Freud? I am not an expert in welfare reform and it took me five or 10 seconds to think, “Who exactly is the noble Lord Freud?” Of course, I remembered that he is very same welfare reform guru who advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) when he was a welfare reform Minister.

Where is he?

Indeed. Lord Freud also produced a report for the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Following the production of that report, I recall a report in The Daily Telegraph that said that our current Prime Minister had a “45-minute shouting match” with the noble Lord Freud before the latter was

“aggressively cross-examined by a room full of Treasury advisers”.

What has politics become? Here we have a Labour Government, whom I am proud to serve as a humble Back Bencher, adopting a more hard-line position than the noble Lord Freud and the Conservatives. That makes me question our position.

Secondly, I acknowledge that although the Secretary of State—it is a pity that she is not here this afternoon—has stuck to the position that it is possible for parents of three and four-year-old children to face benefit sanctions, as has been spelled out today, she has hemmed it in with all sorts of qualifications. For example, the well-being of the child has to be considered, and the basic policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister is three strikes and out. Then, of course, there is the question of the statutory instrument, which would require the approval of the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) questioned the effectiveness of such a measure, my eyes were opened. I always believed that SIs were a safeguard, but apparently they are not.

There are safeguards, but at the end of the day, it might be that in a few months’ time, possibly in a little room in a jobcentre in South Dorset or in Pontefract and Castleford, a vulnerable single parent will sit at one end of the table and an official will sit at the other, and the former will have to justify their actions, justify why they are not taking up the appropriate child care so that they can do work-related activity or justify their personal circumstances.

I am a great believer in Fabianism, but there is a part of the Webb tradition that borders on authoritarianism and says, “We know best.” It is a bold claim, but I think those who are doubtful about the Government’s position, including me, speak for middle England. Selby is a middle England constituency, similar in some ways to South Dorset. The Opposition are right to say that thinking has changed on the Government Benches. Most people in middle England would say that there should be sticks as well as carrots when children of single parents attain a certain age, but most would be shocked to think that a Labour Government are proposing to cut up to 40 per cent. of benefits in the worst cases, and that they are proposing to make those savage cuts to the benefits of parents whose children are under five. I do not think that we are carrying middle England with us on the issue.

I said that I would be brief, so I shall make my third point. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is not here today, because I recognise, as do some of the pressure groups, such as Gingerbread, that she has tried to make the Bill more family-friendly. We in Yorkshire know that she is a warm, generous-hearted and engaging character, rather like my right hon. Friend the Minister. She has enlivened Yorkshire politics since she joined us in 2001 and has since brought up a family and a husband—[Laughter.] They have all enlightened Yorkshire politics.

This proposal is mean-spirited. It is cold, austere and technocratic, and it is unworthy of the Secretary of State and the Minister. I ask the Minister, even at this stage and in the spirit of Christmas, which is soon to be upon us, to drop his opposition to amendment 2.

Like the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), I am a great fan of the Webbs.

I find it odd that an amendment tabled by a former Government adviser who now feels comfortable in the Conservative party is being resisted as “too soft”. Sometimes I cannot work out who is on which side. We have to be on the side of the child and the family, so we have real concerns about the motion to disagree with amendment 2.

Various arguments have been advanced as to why we should reject amendment 2. One is that the amendment is not clear, because it uses the phrase “single parent” rather than “lone parent”, but it is fairly obvious what it means. Indeed, Lord McKenzie, in opposing the amendment in the other place said that it would mean that

“lone parents with a youngest child aged three or four would be required to attend a work-focused interview”,—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 840.]

so he knew perfectly well what it meant. If the Government’s only objection is that this amendment is not tidy enough, they could have tabled an amendment to make the provision work properly, but they do not want it to work properly, which is not a credible argument.

It has been argued that the amendment does not apply to the full range of benefits, but only to certain ones, and that it could be tidied up. If it simply needs sorting out, but its spirit is accepted, the Government could deal with the matter. However, the Government do not want to deal with the matter, because they do not agree with the principle, and it is the principle that must concern us now.

I thought that the Minister was very candid when I asked him why we need the stick. Why do we need to blackmail lone parents with a youngest child of three or four to take all the goodies, help and assistance that is on offer? According to the Government, lone parents need to be forced to take that, because the Government know what is best for them. That is clearly the Government’s position, as the Minister hinted when he said that we have to make it more uncomfortable for lone parents to do the wrong thing. The key question for Liberals is who decides what is the wrong thing for someone responsible for the well-being of a child aged three or four. Even when a child is as young as three or four, the Government say that they, rather than the parent, know what is best for that child, and they will threaten the household’s well-being if the parent does not do what they want, which seems very presumptuous.

Like me, my parliamentary neighbour has had the opportunity to talk to new deal organisers, and it is refreshing to listen to their stories of lone parents who had no education, but who have taken up the opportunities that the Government have offered. I do not understand why the Government do not see that as a great success and continue to invest in that programme, rather than looking at the stick.

I agree; nobody doubts the potential of these schemes if they are taken up by willing volunteers. In many such cases, they are very successful, but there is a world of difference between a scheme that someone enters into willingly and enthusiastically, and one that people are coerced into entering. Indeed, the Government’s approach could be counter-productive, because everybody who took part would know that they were doing so under duress, whereas if we removed the requirement for parents of three and four-year-olds, everybody would be a voluntary participant. We all know, from talking to advisers and others, that it is the willing and voluntary participants in such schemes who have the best results, not those doing so with a stick at their back.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that work is the best route out of poverty? If he does, why can he not see that, given that the length of time spent out of the labour market determines how easy it is to get back into it, we should start to encourage people to overcome the obstacles so that they can get back into work?

It is interesting to note the weasel words. The Government are not proposing to “encourage”: they are proposing to force, blackmail and threaten. We have no problem with encouraging lone parents with children of three or four to start the process of becoming ready for work, but why did the Minister use the word “encourage”, not “force”, “threaten” or “blackmail”, because that is what a sanction regime does? It does not solely encourage; it goes much further than that.

If the hon. Gentleman agrees that work is the best route out of poverty, but does not like what he describes as “blackmail”, does that mean that he does not agree with that approach for any jobseekers? Why does he agree with it for some customers of Jobcentre Plus, but not for others?

As the Minister says, there is a fundamental question about the role of sanctions; on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have a general scepticism about the role of sanctions. However, the case before us is a strong one, because the state is presuming that it, rather than the parent, knows what is best for the welfare of a child. We are talking about not only, for example, an unemployed adult, but the parent of a young child. The state is saying, “We know what’s best for the welfare of your child. You don’t. And we’ll take money off you until you do what we tell you to do.” [Interruption.] I do not know why the Minister is shaking his head, because that is precisely what the legislation does.

We are not saying that we know what is best for the child; we are saying that the well-being of the child comes first. This should be at the convenience of the parent—if adequate child care is available, and while the child is in whatever child care, nursery setting or school that the parent thinks is appropriate. All we are saying is that work is the best route out of poverty. If we are committed to tackling child poverty, we have to make it easier, and put the structures in place, for lone parents to be able to get back into work.

There is a non sequitur in the Government’s argument. They seem to argue that—the Minister in the Lords, Lord McKenzie, argued this—without the threat, the support cannot be provided, which is nonsense. Lord McKenzie said that, if we accept the amendment, it

“would mean depriving lone parents with a youngest child aged three or four of the help and support that they may need”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 839.]

Why? Why does the absence of bullying, a threat or a sanction prevent Governments and jobcentres from contacting lone parents, encouraging them and telling them what is available? Why do we need to threaten them?

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his party’s position on no sanctions of any kind. However, is not the case against sanctions for women with children under five that such sanctions affect not only the adult, who is arguably conscious of making their own decisions, but children who are already living on the breadline? Those are the people whom my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench want to sanction.

That is absolutely right. There is a fiction in the Department for Work and Pensions that when sanctions are applied, they are sanctions on the adult bit of the benefit. However, the implications of the sanction are felt by the whole household. The Minister has said, “Ah no, we have brought in a safeguard—the well-being of the child.” I have looked at the three amendments in the group relating to the well-being of the child, and they relate to action plans—amendments 8 and 54—and to jobseekers’ agreements.

Will the Minister clarify something? Surely it is very hard to argue that the sanction does not adversely affect the welfare of the child, so how does the safeguard work? The action plan is drawn up with the welfare of the child in mind, as, too, is the jobseekers’ agreement. However, if the lone parent does not comply, will an appeal tribunal or a DWP official argue, “Well, it is in mum’s best interest that she gets to work, because work is the best route out of poverty, so even if the child has to live below the breadline for a while, it is for the best”? It is hard to know what that so-called safeguard means.

The phrase, “the best route out of poverty is work”, concerns me a little, first because work is not always a route out of poverty. There is a second reason however: according to the Government’s logic, that route could take us right down to age zero. Surely for some families, where both kids and adults are affected by lots of problems, the best thing is not to be working; however, such families should not be in poverty either.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in an earlier intervention that there are as many children in poverty in working households as in non-working households, so work in itself is not a guarantee of being out of poverty. I also take his point that it should surely be for the lone parent themselves to judge what is in the best interests of their family, particularly when their children are young, rather than for the state to impose that on them.

The safeguards, although welcome if we have to lump what the Government propose, make the system even more complicated for someone trying to navigate it. Such a person might fail to comply, after which they get another go, but then they might fail to comply again. One of the earlier speakers in this debate said, “It’s three strikes and you’re out,” and the Minister said from a sedentary position, “It’s four strikes and you’re out,” but at what point is a decision appealable? If someone says, “I don’t think this is in the best interests of the child—it’s in breach of the Lords amendments,” can the individual concerned go to appeal? Can they go to appeal because someone says that something conflicts with the child’s school hours or school holidays? Can someone go to appeal on the availability of child care? The Government say that there is enough good child care available, but what if someone says that there is not, because they would need to get a bus there and they do not have the money for the bus fare?

Everything gets incredibly complicated. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) mentioned in an intervention a family with five children. Often we are talking about families with not only one child under five, but several. Life can be incredibly complex and messy, and then there are all the hoops to jump through and all the caveats—you might satisfy this one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but can you appeal against that one? Lone parents with young children do not need the grief, but that is what the additional threat will give them.

By all means let us contact lone parents and support them. Let us make the options that we give them as attractive as possible. Then I envisage that many will take those options up and see them as being to their long-term benefit. However, if a lone mother—or a lone father—decides that something is in the best interests of herself, her children and her family, she should have the right to do so.

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 2, but let me first nail the idea, which seems to emanate from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, that single mothers as a group do not want to work and that they have to be coerced and threatened into doing so. The majority in my circle of friends are or were single mothers—some had children as early as 15—but they all went back to work. Indeed, some went back to work and got degrees—they did that of their own free will, 20 years ago, in circumstances that were a lot harder. My experience from my constituency is that single mothers with any type of skill are anxious to return to work and will do so given the right support.

What we are talking about in this debate is the Government’s wish to coerce a residual group of young women, who probably do not have skills and almost certainly have very little education, back to work. Let us pause and think. I went back to work when my son was eight days old. I have nothing in principle against women with young children going back to work, but I was a well-paid woman doing a job that I loved. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are talking about ill-educated girls going back to work to stack shelves or do a service job, often in split shifts. That is the work that they want to drive those girls back to, not work that they would want to leave their three-year-old children to do. The first thing to say, therefore, is that the vast majority of single mothers, given the right support and encouragement, will go back to work as the Government wish.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No.

Given the right support and help with child care, the majority of single mothers will go back to work. However, we are talking about a residual group of women who, in practice, go back at the very bottom of the work pyramid, to do jobs that none of us would want to leave our three-year-old children to do.

The second point is that the Government’s proposal is based on fantasy figures about the availability of nursery care and child care for children aged three. Ministers have said that nursery places are available for three quarters of children, but that is not my experience in Hackney. My experience is that people regularly come to me with children aged five and above who cannot get places for them in nursery. I would be happier with the Government’s proposal if the Government came to me with solid research to show that nursery provision is available for 75, 80 or 90 per cent. of children, but that is not my experience in the east end of London.

We therefore have a proposal based on fantasy figures about the availability of child care. However, even if child care were available to 100 per cent. of such children, speaking as a single mother—albeit a well-paid one—I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that although some children skip off happily to nursery at the age of three and never look back, some do not like nursery, while others are sick every minute and have to stay at home for a week or two at a time. It is very hard for someone with a child who is poorly every other week or who has something wrong with them to sustain permanent employment. Only the mother is best placed to judge whether she can leave her three-year-old and go out to work.

As I have said, some children are happy in nursery at the age of two or three, but some need more support because of health issues or whatever. The mother should be able to judge that, not some official in a jobcentre. Even if 100 per cent. nursery care were available, which it is not, I believe that Ministers are peddling fantasy figures. Only a mother can tell whether it is best for her child to be left while she goes out to do work-related activity or to work. The residual group of mothers that we are talking about needs support and education as mothers; they do not need to be shoehorned into jobs at the bottom of the work pyramid.

Ministers have tried to explain to me that those women will have to work only if it fits in with school or nursery hours. Again, they are not talking about the real world. Are they taking into account travel time to and from work and the time it takes to pick up children from nursery? When my son was five, I had to leave Westminster an hour and a quarter before picking him up from nursery. Are Ministers adding on these women’s travelling time? Are they taking into account the time that it takes to travel to pick up another child from school after picking up a younger child from nursery? This is not real world stuff.

Of course work is a route out of poverty, and of course we should encourage and support single mothers who want to go back to work. In the middle of a recession that has by no means played itself out, however, it is unconscionable to talk about imposing financial sanctions on women with children as young as three. We know that those women are on the breadline because they are on benefits.

It is a fact that, nowadays, the proceedings of the House of Commons are not properly reported, if they are reported at all. Colleagues on the Treasury Bench will be grateful for that, because if ordinary Labour members and supporters could hear Labour Ministers talking about imposing financial sanctions on women with three-year-old children to get them into notional jobs in the middle of a very real recession, they would be shocked and unhappy. Ministers have not made their case, and I will be voting to support Lords amendment 2.

I should like to start by quoting from the Department for Work and Pensions’ five-year strategy that was published in 2005. It states:

“we think it would be wrong simply to move lone parents from Income Support onto the Jobseeker’s Allowance regime: an unrestricted requirement to search for work is inappropriate, given the complex and difficult circumstances many lone parents face. We think such an approach would be expensive, unfair and ineffectual.”

I agree, but what has changed since 2005? Certainly, lone parents have continued to engage with work as their children have got older. They have been supported and helped by programmes such as the new deal, which I fully support.

It seems, however, that we are constantly having to respond to the Daily Mail-type agenda, which suggests that lone parents and other people on benefit—perhaps incapacity benefit—are somehow feckless and living the life of Riley while the state pays them luxurious benefits. That is not the case. As the DWP knows full well, the reality is that only a small proportion of lone parents with children over 11 are actually not in work. The figures that I have are probably not the most up to date, but they suggest that 19 per cent. of lone parents whose youngest child is over 11 claim income support. Of those, 25 per cent. are caring for a disabled child, and 28 per cent. have a disability themselves.

The reality is that lone parents do engage in work, and as the child care becomes less onerous as their children get older—or as the access to child care improves—more of them are returning to work. Research has shown that access to good quality child care is the biggest factor in determining whether lone parents go out to work. I commend the Government’s work over the years on improving access to child care, but we still have a long way to go. In that quote, the Government seemed to acknowledge that lone parents have difficult lives and that they have to juggle their work and home lives.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that it is not for some bureaucrat to decide what is best for children. Most parents take responsibility for their children and do a good job. We should value the work that parents do in bringing up their children. That in itself is a valid contribution to our society. By all means, those who want to work and can work should be encouraged to do so, but we as a society should value the work that parents do in bringing up children and value the decisions they make about how best to do that. Yes, some people may be inadequate and need support, so we need programmes to offer it, but I do not agree with having sanctions to deprive people who are already poor of their benefits, as this may affect the children.

The biggest problem people face is coping with poverty. Yes, work will help people get out of poverty, but for some people, it is not in the interests of their family for them to work. The Government acknowledge that, as we have had all sorts of concessions made to the original proposals, which I welcome. I think that the new Secretary of State has engaged positively, trying to reflect the realities of life for lone parents in trying to engage with work, but what we have as a result is a very complex and bureaucratic system. We know that people do not understand complex systems. We know that those on the receiving end of those bureaucratic complexities do not understand them. We also know that the staff who administer those complex regulations are often not very good at understanding them. As a result, we do not always get the right decisions.

I remain of the view that the Government are right to support people on benefits, lone parents and other groups to engage in work so that they have a life of their own away from their caring responsibilities. That is good. I think that most lone parents who experience that kind of support value it and want to engage, so I think it is unnecessary to have these complex regulations to invoke sanctions against already poor people. We know from DWP research that staff themselves feel very uncomfortable about introducing a mandatory element into their work with lone parents. The Government should listen to the views of those staff, which are well documented in the DWP’s own research publications.

Given that the staff working at the sharp end do not want to be involved in mandatory sanctions for women with children up to the age of three, why does my hon. Friend think that Ministers are so wedded to those mandatory sanctions? They have not explained themselves and my hon. Friend might be able to shed some light on this issue.

I think the answer is in what I said at the beginning of my contribution—that there is an agenda out there that we have to be tough. I simply do not accept the idea of tough love. I think that we need positive encouragement and incentives for people to live a more fulfilled life, which they often experience by going out to work. I take my hon. Friend’s point that some jobs that people engage in are low paid and not particularly interesting to do, but even those jobs provide the advantage of enabling people to meet others and to develop friendships and comradeships with their fellow workers. I believe that people value that experience; it is part of being part of society.

If the Government were proposing to extract parents from their home, absolve them of responsibility for their children and put them into jobs, I would probably agree with my hon. Friend, but that is not what is being proposed. Does she accept that it is important that lone parents and women in particular remain with some sort of attachment to the labour market so that when they make the decision to go back into employment, they still have live skills that they can use to lift their children and their families out of poverty?

I agree that opportunities should be provided for lone parents and other benefit recipients to engage in the world of work, in the voluntary sector and in other activities that include a social element. I do not think that people ought to be stuck at home with the children and without those opportunities. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they wish to engage with those opportunities. I do not think that the opportunities should be forced on them, along with the threat of a loss of benefits which are already not over-generous.

We have almost reached an agreement. We agree that it is important for young women, in particular, to remain in contact with the labour market. May I point out, however, that the subject of sanctions—on which I understand that my hon. Friend holds a principled position—arises very far down the line? There is encouragement, support and negotiation for months before sanctions are even mentioned. Does she not accept that that encouragement is built into the programmes proposed by my right hon. Friend the Minister?

I do not accept that sanctions are necessary. All that can be said for them is that they provide a structure for the relationship, because staff cannot simply give up the attempt to make contact; they must continue the encouragement. That is the only beneficial aspect of a sanctions programme that I can see, and if it is to be used so rarely, why invoke it?

I think I am right in saying that since sanctions were introduced for work-focused interviews, about 4 per cent.—not an insignificant figure—of lone parents have had to endure them. My argument is that we need to ensure that the services on offer are excellent and effective, that we need to involve lone parents in the identification of what services are effective and ensure that they are on offer, and that if for some reason a lone parent does not engage with the process initially, we must not give up but must use other means of drawing their attention to the availability of support, such as Sure Start centres and after-school activities involving parents. The support should be seen as a positive element, and that can be achieved through members of these people’s peer group, rather than their being forced to jump through hoops because Ministers want to appear tough.

In an earlier intervention, which was rather lengthy, I gave an example involving one of my constituents. Her children are older than the ones that we are discussing, but the case demonstrates that DWP staff know that it is a waste of time trying to develop an action plan for parents such as her to engage with the world of work, because they will never be in a position to do that.

I have visited my constituent at her home, and she has explained to me how she has to juggle her commitments in order to be there for her children. Some of them go to school, and she has to be there when they come home. They have severe disabilities. I know that because my constituent is a carer she will not be required to engage in work-focused activity, but none the less she is being subjected to regular mandatory work-focused interviews, and she resents that very much. For her, it is a complete waste of time—it is a waste of her time, and it is a waste of the staff’s time.

My constituent acknowledges that she would like to maintain a relationship with the person who interviews her, because she is really nice and they have a nice chat. However, that is all that it amounts to: a nice chat. I think that it is probably better to support people who need nice chats in other areas of public services, such as schools and health care settings, than to force them to participate in work-focused interviews. She says she knows other parents of disabled children who feel that these requirements are unnecessary and intrusive.

Today we only have the opportunity to vote on removing the benefits sanctions in relation to three to five-year-olds, but we are concerned in general with a group that has young children and for whom child care is the most difficult to organise. I, too, will be supporting the Lords amendment. I just wish that we were not going down this route and that we were sticking to the voluntary approach.

We have had an interesting debate, during which I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but he needs the leave of the House to speak again on the Lords amendment.

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) for her sterling support?

We started with an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). My right hon. Friend described the speech as opportunism. I agree. The Opposition are simply playing politics rather than being serious. I confirm that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Freud in the other place was restricted to work-related activity, so the position in the other place—there are countless examples of the noble Lord Freud saying something slightly different from the Opposition spokesman—was clear: there is no problem with financial sanctions in respect of lone parents whose youngest child is aged between three and five. The measure was in respect of work-related activity. Indeed, there was no problem with sanctions; it was only a question of financial sanctions. The hon. Gentleman talked, bizarrely, about what sounded like vouchers and about making it inconvenient by forcing people to travel across cities. For the avoidance of doubt, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the regulations in amendment (a) would include the sanctions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made a typically clear and, at times, amusing contribution, but I would obviously dispute that we are being mean-spirited. We are trying to help and support this group of lone parents, to improve that help and support and to build on the success of the new deal for lone parents. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) paid tribute to that programme.

The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) talked about whether he would be characterised as too soft. He worried that we thought we knew best. I dealt with most of his points in a series of interventions, but if he agrees in any way with conditionality, he must see merit in what we are arguing.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that we do not want to sanction anybody. We want lone parents to be supported and to get back into work, but in a way that is sympathetic to their needs as parents. That is what I said at the outset: the principle on family-friendly working is that we believe that work is the best route out of poverty but that, first and foremost, those parents have a responsibility to their children. Any requirement that we put on them, first and foremost, has to bear in mind the needs of the children and their needs as parents. I hope that it never comes to using any of these sanctions, but having them in place helps to focus the system.

I would also say to the hon. Member for Northavon that the work-related activity must flow from an action plan, so the safeguard does apply to work-related activity. It was unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington did not want to take any interventions, as that meant I was unable to clarify a few matters for her. She accused me of using fantasy figures, although they were taken from the Department for Children, Schools and Families child care and early years survey of parents of last year, but I think there was some fantasy attached to her argument. We are not talking about forcing people into work; we are talking about people agreeing with us an action plan through the work-focused interview, and then, at the end of a very long sanctions process, the possibility of financial sanctions. There is a guarantee of a child care place for 15 hours a week from 2010 and currently for 12.5 hours, which is already in place in Hackney for all three and four-year-olds, but if that is not in place in practice, that is certainly a good cause for a lone parent not to take advantage of the work-related activity that we would provide.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 13, 14, 16 to 24, 29, 51, 52, 60, 92, 93 and 95 to 102.

Many of the amendments in this group are technical and consequential, and I shall therefore not linger on them. I anticipate that there will be most interest in the proposals on renaming council tax benefit as council tax rebate and on uprating, so I shall dwell on those at slightly more length.

There are six amendments that end provision for pilot schemes that impose a benefit sanction on people who breach a community order. They have been superseded by new measures and are no longer necessary.

There is then a group containing four amendments in respect of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, following a very useful report that I am sure all parts of the House welcomed. The amendments will put them into effect.

Amendment 16 will resolve a technical issue in respect of disability living allowance and remove what is effectively a duplicate clause. Amendments 19 to 22 will resolve a further technical issue in payments on account and achieve better benefit alignment in respect of the use of the social fund. Our own internal scrutiny found that there was no need to include housing benefit in the scope of that measure.

Amendments 23 and 52 deal with the uprating of benefits. That important change will enable us to meet our promise to pensioners to increase basic state pension from April by 2.5 per cent., which will be worth about £1 billion over the course of the year. The amendments will allow the Secretary of State to consider uprating certain social security benefits in April 2010, even if there is no increase in the general level of prices. The retail prices index has been traditionally used to determine an increase in the general level of prices.

The amendments, as I read them, relate only to 2010. Will the Minister explain why he has not given the Secretary of State a general power? In 12 months’ time, the RPI could still be negative and we would need primary legislation again. Why not provide for a general power?

As hon. Members will be aware, next year’s benefit rates will be announced at the pre-Budget report and in the subsequent uprating statement, and I am therefore unable to pre-empt those announcements this afternoon by legislating accordingly.

These measures are, of course, a further demonstration of the Government’s commitment to tackling pensioner poverty, which has resulted in almost 1 million fewer pensioners in poverty than when we came to office in 1997. Poverty is clearly a topical issue.

Amendments 29 and 51 are very important measures that would rename council tax benefit. I should like to start by paying tribute to the Royal British Legion not just for the services that right hon. and hon. Members will have attended throughout the country last Sunday, including the excellent services that I attended at Portland and Swanage in my constituency, or for the importance of the act of remembrance that we will observe tomorrow morning, but for its campaign to rename council tax benefit “council tax rebate”. It has led an impressive campaign against pensioner poverty generally, and in particular it has clearly demonstrated how important a name change might be for many of the people whom it represents. It speaks for all pensioners, but particularly for ex-service personnel, who have given so much to this country. We want to ensure that they are afforded the dignity that they deserve and are not put off from receiving what they are most certainly entitled to.

I should like also to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber. She has not just raised the issue with the Prime Minister in the House, but met the Secretary of State and given sterling support to the campaign. The amendments will insert a new clause that requires the Secretary of State, by order, to change the name of council tax benefit to council tax rebate. They will allow for consequential changes to references to council tax benefit in other legislation and documents. The first use of the power will require the approval of Parliament through the affirmative procedure. That will provide a further opportunity to debate the precise details of how the measure will be implemented, following proper consultation with interested parties, especially local government and pensioner groups.

The Government have introduced the amendments to help address the low take-up of council tax benefit by removing a barrier that many pensioners face in claiming help with the payment of their council tax bill. We believe that some people, particularly pensioners, are deterred from claiming benefits but would be much more comfortable about claiming once they understood the true nature of the help to which they are entitled—in this case, a rebate on their council tax bill.

When I spoke to the previous amendments, I referred to this Government’s excellent record on tackling pensioner poverty. We continue to do all we can to encourage pensioners to take up the benefits and help to which they are entitled, but the take-up of some key benefits, including council tax benefit, is still disappointing. We believe that the renaming is right, and it has received unanimous support from all parties in the House.

In summary, the amendments contain important measures that will enable the Government to continue to act on our commitment to help pensioners to receive the help that we have put in place and to which they are entitled.

As the Minister said, this is a miscellaneous group of amendments—and I shall speak to a few of them. Lords amendments 1 and 24 deal with pilots. I agree with the Minister that the need for those pilots has been superseded by a change in legislation, but I want to press him in one area that may provide a lesson on how Ministers conduct pilots in future. The pilots were originally introduced in 2001. Given that they are no longer needed, it is right to remove their legislative basis, but eight years seems like a fair wait. In the other place, there was a debate about how long the pilots had run for, how long the assessment had taken, and how long the decision had taken to introduce something else. We need to ensure that the pilots on new measures in the Bill run for no longer than is necessary to establish whether there is sufficient evidence as to whether they work—and that if they do work, we should not necessarily run them for their full period, but should learn from them and then decide whether they should be rolled out more widely. That would be a sensible lesson to draw from the amendments.

Lords amendments 13, 14, 17 and 18 improve the extent to which this House and the other place have control over some of the proposals in the Bill, by inserting affirmative resolutions and replacing ministerial direction with a need for regulations. Those measures are welcome, as they strengthen the powers of this House.

Lords amendment 16 relates to disability living allowance and the extension of higher-rate mobility allowance to people with a visual impairment. Will the Minister clarify where the funding for that will come from? When we discussed the relevant new clause on Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is in his place, announced the Government’s decision to support it right at the end of the debate, so there was insufficient opportunity to probe him on the date of the introduction of the change, and exactly where the Government had found the funding for it.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s call for clarity. For the avoidance of doubt, could he confirm whether this policy would be implemented if his party were in power in 2011?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will be able to state our position at the end of my remarks, and I think he will be pleased with the answer.

When we debated this matter in the Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) chuckling away; I will refer to our exchanges on Report as well. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:

“While the Government fully recognise the intentions behind the new clause, accepting it without having the funding to support it would require us to withdraw funding from elsewhere in the benefit system.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 270.]

He said that he was not in a position to give a time scale showing when he would be in a position to finance a change to the rules. Two weeks later, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), was asked the same question at Work and Pensions questions, he was unable to give a commitment on being able to fund it.

The very next day, 17 March, when we debated the matter on Report, we had a lively debate in which a number of Members took part. The Under-Secretary said right at the end of his remarks that he was

“delighted to announce today that we are now in a position to agree to fund this proposal”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 855.]

He said that he took great pleasure in accepting what was then new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who was in his place earlier but is not here now.

That obviously invites the same question that the hon. Gentleman has just put to the Minister. Would that be a net increase in overall spending, and if not, does he already know what he would cut to pay for it?

I will not outline our excellent policies in great detail, because that would be straying away from the amendments, but the hon. Gentleman will know the impressive proposals that we have published in our work programme, such as getting people back to work and investing the savings that result. I am therefore confident that within the budgets that we have available, we will be able to fund that measure without having to cut any other programmes. I am pleased that people with a visual impairment can rest assured that this welcome measure can be introduced regardless of the result of the general election.

The Minister of State suggested that Lords amendment 23 might be of interest, and the hon. Member for Northavon has already mentioned it. It is about the power to uprate benefits following a review in the tax year 2009-10. It is an interesting amendment that prompts a number of questions. When Lord McKenzie introduced it in the other place, he made it clear that it was

“intended to give the Government the flexibility to uprate the basic state pension by the commitment of 2.5 per cent. and to uprate other social security benefits as the Secretary of State thinks fit, even though the level of prices, as measured by the retail prices index, has not increased.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 918.]

That prompts a number of questions, because the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said in the House of Commons on 11 December 2008, when he was making the annual benefits uprating statement:

“We enshrined a 2.5 per cent. floor in the Pensions Act 2008, so if inflation goes down to zero, as some anticipate, there will always be at least that 2.5 per cent.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 700.]

I was not aware of that change, so I consulted the Library, which does not believe that either the Pensions Act 2008 or the Pensions Act 2007 has been changed to give effect to that statement. It thinks that it was a non-statutory Government commitment. What the right hon. Member for Harrow, East said in the House does not seem consistent with Lord McKenzie’s comments. Will the Minister confirm whether his colleague, the former Minister, may have inadvertently misled the House about the basis for the 2.5 per cent. uprating in cases where the retail prices index has not risen? If the provision is already in the Pensions Act, it is not needed to uprate the basic state pension, which is the main reason that Lord McKenzie gave for introducing it. I think that that was the basis of the point that the hon. Member for Northavon made.

The hon. Member for Northavon wondered why the change was a one-off, which would take effect for only the coming financial year. Lords amendment 23 is very specific. It is a new clause, entitled “Power to up-rate benefits following review in tax year 2009-10”—the current tax year. It provides that if

“the general level of prices is no greater at the end of the period…than it was at the beginning”,

the Secretary of State will have the power, looking at the national economic situation, to make changes to benefits in the following year. Of course, that is the year of the general election. That raises the question of whether we are considering a pre-election ploy or gimmick. Now that we have established that the general level of prices could fall or be zero, I cannot understand why no permanent change is being made to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, providing the power for the Secretary of State to make the judgment on an ongoing basis. I cannot understand why the decision is for one year only.

When the hon. Member for Northavon pressed the Minister, he gave a reply, but it did not answer the question. He said that he could not pre-empt the Chancellor’s announcements in the pre-Budget report, but the hon. Gentleman had not asked him to do that. I might try to tempt him to do it—I know he will not go there—but the hon. Gentleman was not asking about rates of increase; he simply asked why the change was not permanent. As things stand, if by next September the general level of prices has not increased and inflation remains negative, and a Government nevertheless wish to increase the basic state pension or other benefits, it would be necessary to change primary legislation again. I do not therefore understand why the Government have not made the change permanent, and it would be helpful if the Minister explained.

I do not wish to tempt the Minister to go beyond his brief and say what other benefits the Chancellor might change in the pre-Budget report, but it might be useful if he gave the House some idea of what factors may be taken into account when setting those benefit rates. In the outside world, people who work have experienced a growth of only 1.6 per cent. in average earnings in the year to August—a reduction from 1.8 per cent. to July. In the private sector, pay growth is just 1.2 per cent., compared with 3.2 per cent. in the public sector. Those who have to go out and earn a living will expect that to be taken into account when Ministers set benefit levels.

The Minister mentioned council tax benefit and the change in the name, which we greatly welcome. I can do no better than repeat the words of my noble Friend Lord Freud, who said in the other place:

“we welcome the government amendment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, Vol. 713, c.1108.]

He rightly paid tribute to the campaign that the Royal British Legion highlighted to focus on the fact that the benefit was really a rebate, and that if the language were changed, it would make a significant difference to pensioners’ attitude to taking up what they are rightfully owed. He made the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had pledged to support the change, and supported the amendment on behalf of our party in the other place. As the Minister rightly said, that amendment has cross-party support.

On Third Reading in the Lords, the Government accepted the amendment tabled by Baroness Turner of Camden to strengthen the change slightly by replacing “may” with “shall”, and that toughened up the provision. I recognise that there are some significant challenges of detail to face, and I simply emphasise what I am sure is this House’s wish that the process should get under way as quickly as possible so that the change can be made as soon as possible.

I conclude with an observation. In the debate on the previous group, I think that the Minister established a new parliamentary convention, which we may wish to call the Knight convention, whereby he set out the Government’s approach of putting sticks in primary legislation and carrots in secondary legislation, with the special twist that carrots might now be introduced in primary legislation. I have no idea whether that will catch on and be put in “Erskine May” in due course, but it may be something that the right hon. Gentleman will leave behind for us all to enjoy in this House in the future.

I want to speak about Lords amendments 29 and 51. I join my right hon. Friend the Minister in paying tribute to the Royal British Legion and its work on changing the name of council tax benefit to council tax rebate. I, too, praise the work of Baroness Turner in the other place. I welcome the Government’s clear commitment today to rename council tax benefit council tax rebate.

I heard what was said about cross-party support—and there has been such support—but without the Government’s willingness to act and to accept the amendment, the Secretary of State’s willingness to meet Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British Legion, and me, and the work of former Ministers, we would not be in this position today. I therefore thank the Government for their action today.

In the past year, I have worked with the Royal British Legion to get more veterans help with their council tax bills. We are considering dignity and respect in old age. We found that pensioners, especially many of our veterans, did not want to claim something called “benefit.” They fought for their country, they have worked all their lives and they have paid their taxes, but now many forgo money that is rightly theirs simply because of the word “benefit.” Words matter, and I am glad that the Minister acknowledges and understands that so well. It is not a subsidy, handout or benefit, but a rebate, and we needed to change the name.

I am delighted that the Government have given a clear commitment to changing the name of council tax “benefit” to council tax “rebate”. That may sound like a small change, but it will make a big difference to tens of thousands of veterans and hundreds of thousands of pensioners. In my constituency alone, as many as 3,000 pensioners could be up to £600 a year better off—£12 a week. That may not sound like a fortune, but for someone living on £130 a week, another £12 makes a big difference. We need to do all we can to ensure that our veterans and our pensioners get the extra help as soon as possible.

I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say a few words at the end of the debate about when we can expect the change to come into force. The Government’s commitment is crucial and welcome, but I would like a clear indication of when they will implement it. If we agree that changing a “benefit” to a “rebate” is important, surely we also agree that it is important to effect that as soon as possible. Having asked for that information, I thank the Minister again for the commitment that he has given us today.

Like the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), I welcome that small step towards trying to improve take-up of council tax benefit. It is worth while, but it is very small step on a very long journey. My understanding is that council tax benefit is the social security benefit with the worst take-up rate of any in the entire system. As she said, many hundreds of thousands of pensioners, and indeed many veterans, are missing out on serious sums.

It has always struck me as absurd that we have a grotesquely unfair local tax system, which we then attempt to ameliorate with a hopelessly ineffective means-tested benefit. Calling it a “rebate” is entirely welcome and may encourage some who do not currently claim it to do so, and it is therefore a step in the right direction, but surely the better system would be to have a fair local tax system to begin with. If we did, we would not need council tax benefit—or indeed council tax rebate. That must be a better way to go.

I do not want there to be any lack of clarity. I understand why the Government needed an amendment. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 gives the Minister the power to lay an order only if there has been a general increase in prices. For the Minister to lay an order in the first place, there has to have been an increase, so if inflation is negative he does not have the power. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) is right to say that if the Minister has the power, he makes the judgment on the level of increase, but he has to have the power in the first place.

I have two concerns about that. Perhaps I asked my first question too quickly and the Minister did not understand. Why would we want to give the Minister the power only for the year starting 2010. Why would it not be a general power? The same situation might happen not next year but in a few years’ time, and there may not then be a social security Act passing through the House onto which to tag the power. We are trying to give Ministers more powers and they are turning us down, which puzzles me.

Secondly, an interesting comment was made about the rate of increase. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, “Well, the Government have pledged 2.5 per cent. but people who earn their living will want to see benefits set taking account of the fact that average earnings increases are only 1 to 1.5 per cent. or so.” He seemed to be implying—I will certainly give way to him if he was not—that the Government are going ahead with 2.5 per cent. because that is their promise, but that people in work would want the Government to have regard to 1.5 per cent. Was he saying that 2.5 per cent. is too big an increase? Otherwise, what was the relevance of the 1.5 per cent?

I was distinguishing between the pension increase, which, as the Government have lately set out, will be 2.5 per cent., which we welcome, and other social security benefits. They have been silent about how much social security benefits might be increased by if they use the same power. I wanted the Minister to lay out the sorts of things that they would take into account. Of course he will not be able to do that today—it will be a matter for the Chancellor—but it would be helpful if he could give some indication of the Government’s thinking.

I am grateful for that clarification.

The other issue in this group of amendments is the failed pilots. Actually, that description is rather uncharitable, and I do not like being uncharitable. A pilot that proves that a scheme is not a good idea is not a failed pilot, but a pilot: a scheme was trialled and tried, and proved not to be cost-effective.

I could not help musing that we have spent about an hour and a half this afternoon talking about a new sanctions regime, when we are repealing a sanction that did not work. It is great that the Government tried a sanction for offenders and discovered that it was more trouble than it was worth, and cost more than it saved. I cannot help wondering whether the Government might not learn from that experience in other areas. It is always easy to apply the rhetoric of being tough, penalising people and forcing them to do what they should do, but some sanctions can be counter-productive, and we have such a case before us this very afternoon.

In conclusion, broadly speaking, this is a very welcome group of amendments. Many outside the House would welcome clarification from Ministers on what they are doing about DLA, and whether the RPI power will be used in future—and if it will, why Ministers did not give themselves the power to do that in this legislation.

I rise to support this group of amendments generally and the renaming of council tax benefit as council tax rebate in particular. It is not a matter of gesture politics; it has real significance. I hope it will send a strong message to pensioners in particular to take up what is theirs by right. Hundreds of veterans and thousands of pensioners in my constituency could benefit from this refocusing, so I very much welcome it.

I join other hon. Members in pressing the Minister to state when it might come into force and urge the Government to take further action to increase pensioner take-up of income and support. For instance, take-up of pensioner tax credits is very poor, and I have run a campaign about it in my constituency twice in the past two years, but that is another debate.

The Minister is absolutely right and gracious to praise the Royal British Legion. Its campaigns have been excellent and I hope that the Government will continue to listen carefully to it. It speaks a lot of sense on a wide range of issues. I am happy to welcome this group of amendments.

With the leave of the House, I shall quickly respond to the debate.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has just shown that we have genuine all-party support for the renaming of council tax benefit to council tax rebate, which I welcome.

The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) asked about DLA. We will exempt lone parents from conditionality when the child is on any rate of the care component of DLA. That will be achieved in secondary legislation. If there is a need for the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is no longer in the Chamber, to write to him with any more detail, I am sure he will do so, but that is the advice I have been given.

In respect of uprating, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) is right that there is currently no power to make orders if the RPI is not positive, which is why it is necessary to make this change. We do not feel that it is necessary to give ourselves a continuing power, because ultimately we believe that the current situation of 0 per cent. RPI is exceptional, and the economic forecasts indicate that the RPI will return to positive growth next year, which would allow us the order-making powers we would need.

For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that what his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), told the House when he made the benefits uprating statement in December 2008—that the power to uprate the basic state pension by at least 2.5 per cent., even if inflation was zero, was in the Pensions Act 2008—is not correct?

It is difficult for me to speak with absolute confidence in respect of what my right hon. Friend said, because I have not looked at the precise words, but he may have been referring to the reintroduction of the earnings link in the Pensions Act 2007. The 2.5 per cent. commitment is a non-statutory commitment, but it is of course carried forward in the amendment.

The hon. Member for Northavon raised some questions about failed pilot schemes. He was probably alluding to the debate on the previous group of amendments, in which we discussed the effective piloting of the lone parents sanctions regime. It is worth noting that the numbers of lone parents on lone parent benefit continue to fall, despite the recession, and that is with a more rigorous sanctions regime in place. So we have a degree of confidence that the principle of sanctions will work in this case.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) for her speech, as I am grateful for the work that she has done on campaigning for this change. She not only reinforced the importance of the campaign as a whole, but spoke up for the 3,000 of her constituents who will benefit from the change and demonstrated her continuing personal commitment to campaign for them.

My right hon. Friend asked the obvious question about timing. I cannot give her as exact a response as she would like. We are committed to making the change as soon as possible, but we are unable to commit to an exact time frame without first completing the detailed work needed to assess the practicality and costs involved, and that requires us to consult the local authorities to ensure that the change is introduced properly and effectively. For example, changes are needed to the 380 local authority IT systems and to DWP computer systems, including those that provide the essential link with the pensioners at the point of claim. References are also made to the name in a wide range of forms and leaflets. We have already begun the process and I hope that my right hon. Friend and others will understand and accept that, as yet, we cannot set out a timetable, but the commitment is there and the work has started.

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked a series of questions. He is right that when we pilot and we find enough evidence that something works, we should get on with it. On the other hand, if something is not working well, we should stop and, when it is next legislatively convenient, remove the powers. That is what we have done in this case, and he will see examples in which we assess quickly and get on with rolling things out more widely.

I was interested in the exchange on amendment 16 and can conclude only that we now have all-party agreement that we need to reprioritise annually managed expenditure into departmental expenditure limits in order to fund that.

I have responded to the main questions on uprating that the hon. Gentleman asked in response to what the hon. Member for Northavon said, and I will not be drawn into commenting on carrot and sticks at this point. I urge the House to agree the amendments.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 3 to 27 agreed to, with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 11, 12, 19 to 21, 23 and 25.

Clause 25

Contracting out functions under Jobseekers Act 1995

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 28.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 61 to 77, 79 and 80.

We estimate that around 350,000 heroin and crack cocaine users are on some form of benefit in this country. We need to help these people overcome their dependence, take control of their lives and get back into work. As the House knows, we are discussing the part of the Bill that is establishing pilots to ensure that problem drug users engage with the rehabilitation process where their drug use is a barrier to work, and do so under threat of sanction. These amendments will improve the pilot design to assist people on this journey, and address concerns raised in both Houses.

The Government will provide additional support and treatment. In return, and in order to receive benefit payments—we will pilot this approach—claimants with a drug dependency that is a barrier to employment and who are not already receiving drug treatment will be required to sign up to a rehabilitation plan that will outline how they will engage with the help that is available to them to overcome their addiction. We are clear that doing nothing will no longer be an option.

If claimants take up treatment voluntarily, they will be offered a treatment allowance and a place on a new drug and employment support programme, which will provide integrated and personalised support for problem drug users on jobseeker’s allowance or employment support allowance. That allowance will be paid to the claimant as long as they agree, via a voluntary rehabilitation plan, to maintain their treatment and take advantage of the additional support available. It will remove some of the normal conditions of entitlement for benefit in order to allow drug users the time and space to focus on their recovery. For example, it will mean that they will no longer have to tell a member of our staff once a fortnight that they are actively seeking work, when clearly they may not be doing so because of their drug problem. The allowance will be payable to the claimant for up to 12 months as long as they maintain their treatment and take advantage of the additional support available.

The Minister referred to places on treatment programmes, and we are talking not only about drugs in the traditional sense, but about alcohol abuse. Certainly my local service providers say that it can be easy to find money for drugs programmes, but hard to find it for alcohol programmes. Can he say something about the resourcing of places for treatment of people with alcohol abuse problems? Is his Department funding the provision of such places and can he give some idea about numbers?

As the hon. Gentleman will know from the way in which I have described the amendments, we have principally designed the provision around people with problem drug use. He is right that it could be used in respect of people with alcohol addiction problems. We plan to look at the arrangements for people on benefit who are dependent on alcohol. We have commissioned new research and will carry out an internal review with the Department of Health that will consider whether arrangements similar to those for problem drug users should be introduced to require those who are alcohol-dependent to take up support to help them get back to work, but it is only once that research has been carried out and the review held that we will be able to make a definite commitment. At that point, we would have to find the resources to do it.

In summary, all these amendments are designed to help encourage problem drug users to engage with treatment services, with the additional help and support on offer through the benefit system. They are all designed to ensure that doing nothing about a drug problem is not an option without consequent loss of benefit. I commend the amendments to the House.

The Minister will know from reading the report of the debate in Committee that we were very supportive of the Government’s proposals in this area and agreed that this is a significant problem. The Minister outlined the numbers—350,000 people on out-of-work benefits who are problem drug users for whom that is a barrier to moving into work. That is clearly a problem that people expect us to deal with. We had some clear discussions in Committee and both sides agreed that it needs to be dealt with, so we welcome the proposals.

The pilots will involve only a relatively small number of problem drug users—I think, from a debate in the other place, about 10,000. Will the Minister clarify how the pilots will be allocated across the United Kingdom? We had some good debates in Committee on how they will work in England, Wales and Scotland. There are many references in the Lords amendments to the rehabilitation plans. Obviously, there is a key dependency on health services in the different parts of the UK, and health, of course, is a devolved matter. One issue that came out in Committee concerned the different priorities in England, Wales and Scotland in rehabilitation provision. I think that Ministers in Committee accepted that effectively the pilots will happen first in England, then Wales and then Scotland. Have further discussions taken place between Ministers in the Department and Members of the devolved Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Government about the pilots and how far the planning has got? For the pilots to be successful, and to give a good indication of success, they will need to be tried in the constituent parts of the UK. That would be helpful.

Returning to a comment that I made earlier about pilots, it is important quickly to understand whether the approach laid out in the Lords amendments will be successful, and if it will, to move on at a significant pace. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) talked about alcohol problems, which we debated in Committee. There are powers in the Bill to deal with alcohol; the Government simply made the judgment that drugs are a more significant priority and should be dealt with first. They indicated, however—and Ministers have confirmed this—that alcohol problems would be looked at. We very much support that. I simply want the Minister to lay out how the Government envisage the pilots being spread across the different constituent parts of the UK. I think that the pilots are supposed to be for three years, and so will tackle only a relatively small part of the problem. If they are successful, we will have to consider how they can be rolled out. However, we support the amendments.

I regard this group of amendments as making the best of a bad job. The provisions relating to drug and alcohol addiction are offensive and authoritarian, and it would have been better to take them out of the Bill altogether. The amendments make things slightly less bad, but the pilots will prove that we have an awfully long way to go before we get an effective response to the issues of drug and alcohol abuse.

I agree with the Minister that doing nothing is not an option. However, there is an incredible paucity of services, particularly for alcohol abuse, but in many cases for drug abuse too, and a lack of support for substance abusers and their families. There is a huge proactive, positive, supportive agenda that could have been implemented first. Then we could have returned to considering what threats and sanctions to apply to those who do not comply. Returning to sticks and carrots, there is an awful lot of carrot yet to be chewed on—to mix my metaphors.

The Minister used an interesting phrase. Once again, we are guilty of weasel words: he said that those who refuse to take a voluntary drug test will be mandated to do so. That does not sound terribly voluntary. If Ministers just come clean and say, “We are going to force people to take a test, and if they do not take it, we will take money off them”, that is fair enough. That is a legitimate position—it is not one that I share, but it is one that the Government take. It is always striking, however, when the Government refuse to describe accurately what they are doing, perhaps because they are embarrassed about it.

If the Government are confident in the rightness of what they are doing, they ought to call a spade a spade. They ought to be clear about what they are doing. Let us consider the idea that it would be helpful for drug addicts to have less money because they will not take a test or accept treatment. We all know the consequences of people with persistent drug addictions not having as much money as they used to. Far from being tough and effective, that will create new victims of crime and will be an entirely negative and regressive step.

We certainly welcome the amendments to the extent that they soften measures that ought never to have been passed into legislation in the first place, but that is about all we can say for them.

With the leave of the House, I shall respond as briefly as possible to the points made.

I welcome the welcome from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) for the amendments. He asked about the pilots. The English pilots will run for two years from October 2010 in five Jobcentre Plus districts: Cumbria and Lancashire, west Yorkshire, Merseyside, Birmingham and Solihull, and central London. The selection of pilot areas has taken into account the number of problem drug users, the geographical, urban and rural spread, and the availability and choice of treatment. He is right to raise the point that there are different arrangements in Wales and Scotland. There have been ministerial and official discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament about the possibility of running a pilot in Wales and Scotland, and we are continuing with those discussions.

The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) accused me of weasel words, which I found most extraordinary—it is a mammal that I admire, but not one that I seek to imitate. Drug tests will be used in two scenarios. If a claimant refuses to attend a substance-related assessment on the grounds that they are not a drug user, they will be offered a voluntary drug test to show that that is the case. A person might be required to take one or more tests, if they have been referred for a substance-related assessment with a drug treatment provider and have failed to do so without good cause on two occasions. We cannot make them take the test, but we can make them suffer a benefit sanction for refusing to do so. In the end, it will be their choice to do it or suffer the sanction if they refuse. That is reasonable, because in the end they need to address their problem drug use if they are to get back into work.

On that basis, I hope that we can agree to the amendments.

Lords amendment 28 agreed to.

Lords amendment 29 agreed to.

Clause 31

relevant services

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 30.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 31 to 49.

It will be useful if I address amendments 34 to 37 first. These amendments restructure clause 33 and make subsequent changes to clauses 34 and 35 to reflect the restructuring of clause 33.

During the debates in this House and the other place, we listened carefully to the broad consensus that the wording of the Bill should more clearly signal the original policy intention that we set out in the welfare reform White Paper. The original wording of clause 33 was deliberately cast broadly to ensure that we could enable trailblazers to test innovative approaches to delivering the right to control. However, we recognise that the wording could set out more clearly that disabled people are at the centre of the right-to-control provisions.

Amendments 30 to 33, amendment 38 and amendments 44 to 49 remove the exclusion of adult social care for the trailblazers and create an order-making power with which the exclusion can be permanently removed depending on the results of a trailblazer evaluation. In the White Paper, we made clear our commitment to align adult community care services with the right to control. We also made clear our intention that disabled people will be at the centre of the right-to-control provisions. We outlined in Committee that adult community care services were originally excluded to avoid duplicating existing community care and direct payments legislation.

We have also made it clear that we deliberately cast the original wording of clause 33 broadly, to enable trailblazers to innovate and test the best ways to deliver the right to control. However, we recognise the importance of clarity in the Bill. We want the legislation to be clear, so that disabled people and local authorities know what the right to control means and what services are included. That is why we developed the amendments over the summer in co-production with Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and the Royal Association for Disability Rights to ensure that the legislation meets the needs of disabled people while retaining flexibility in delivering the right to control.

The Minister will not be surprised to know that the amendments in the group have the support of the Opposition. I am pleased that the Government accepted them in the other place and worked closely with Baroness Campbell of Surbiton on co-producing them.

The Government have effectively done what we urged them to do when we debated the issue in the Commons. The Minister will know, because he was the one dealing with part 2 of the Bill, that we pressed in Committee for the exclusion of community and social care services from the Bill to be removed. He is right; we highlighted the fact that the Bill included a broadly drawn power, which sounded encouraging, that was narrowed substantially by the exclusion of community care services. When we pressed the Minister in Committee, the answer that he gave was about avoiding duplication or causing confusion. We pressed him on that, and I am pleased that the discussions that took place—presumably between the Minister’s Department and the Department of Health—have been successful. He has confirmed that the pilots will be able to include community care services and that if those pilots are successful, as I very much believe they will be—

Trailblazers.

Yes, I must call them trailblazers. That is an important use of language, because it suggests to those running the schemes that that is how we want things to happen—it is important to recognise that there is cross-party support for the initiative. The trailblazers are being introduced to work out how best to do that; they are not pilot schemes that may or may not be successful. For those local authorities and other bodies that are thinking of implementing such programmes, it is worth knowing that there is a genuine commitment on both sides of the House to putting disabled people at the centre of the services provided to them and to having them being in control of the funding. That is an important message, so I am grateful to the Minister for heckling me and putting me right about calling the schemes “trailblazers”.

The Minister also drew attention to the work done in the other House, which involved Baroness Campbell of Surbiton working closely with the Minister—Baroness Campbell and I have also had many discussions about the matter. With the Lords amendments in the current group, the Bill now looks in good shape. As I was saying before we had that little diversion, if the trailblazers are successful, Ministers will have the general power to get rid of the community care exclusion, so that when the schemes are rolled out across the country, we will see genuinely joined-up services.

One of the powerful things in this debate is that by taking money from different Departments, putting it together and giving it to the individuals concerned, thereby putting them in control and allowing them to spend it, we are likely to be more successful in joining up services and delivering them seamlessly, rather than having different Departments working alongside each other. I therefore welcome the amendments in the group that deal with that point.

The first set of amendments that the Minister mentioned deal with, as it were, changing the order of precedence. I welcome the fact that the way in which the amendments are worded now puts the disabled person at the centre of things and makes it much clearer that the local or other authority with which they are working has to work with them in partnership, which was not adequately reflected in the original wording. That is a step forward.

With those two changes together, we have an improved Bill. In particular, the right to control has the potential to change the lives of many disabled people significantly for the better and give them the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We therefore have no hesitation in welcoming the amendment.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is absolutely right that we are talking about trailblazers, not pilots. That is the policy intention. We have had the pilots and we have learned from them about what works and about those areas where we need to improve things. I appreciate, too, his words about our discussions with Baroness Campbell. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Lords amendment 30 agreed to, with Commons privileges waived.

Lords amendments 31 to 49 agreed to, with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 31, 38, 44 and 48.

After Clause 43

Report on operation of travel authorisation amendments

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 50.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 81 to 89.

Lords amendment 50 will help to ensure that Parliament can properly review the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission’s power to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding a travel authorisation without application to the court, where that non-resident parent has wilfully failed to pay child maintenance and other forms of enforcement have failed. Parliament’s ability to make that review before the legislation comes into permanent effect will be the same as that already provided for in relation to the driving licence provisions.

Lords amendment 50 will ensure that reports on the operation of the driving licence and travel authorisation powers must be put before Parliament within six months of the end of a two-year review period. Based on the outcomes in that report, the Secretary of State will have the option of making the administrative system permanent or reverting to the existing court-based powers for either or both of those administrative powers. Any decision to maintain an administrative system must be made by an order subject to the affirmative procedure. Hon. Members will thereby have an opportunity to debate the success of each measure before a permanent administrative system is introduced.

The Government appreciate the movement that the Opposition have made on the issue and the support given to the amendment in the other place. I agree with my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton that the amendment represents a significant workable compromise. I hope that hon. Members agree that the commission needs robust enforcement mechanisms at its disposal, so that the small minority of non-resident parents who refuse to support their children financially are made to comply. The amendment gives the commission the means to help it to achieve that.

Let me turn to the amendments concerning the joint birth registration provisions. Lords amendments 82 to 86 are technical amendments that are necessary to bring into effect new sections 2B, 2C and 2D of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. These sections cover the processes to be followed in cases in which unmarried parents are acting separately, because they cannot or will not register jointly. The amendments seek to ensure that the processes to be followed by parents under our new proposals are as streamlined as possible.

Under the joint birth registration provisions, most parents will register together as they do now. However, in the exceptional cases in which parents cannot or will not register the birth together, they may be required to provide information separately to the registrar. In some of those cases, the mother will give the registrar her required information in advance of the father providing his details. At that time, she will also give details of the father to the registrar, so that the registrar can contact him and require him to co-operate with the registration process.

As the Bill is currently drafted, once the father has been contacted and confirmed his details, the mother would be required to return to the register office to sign the birth certificate. These amendments will ensure that the mother will not be required to return to the register office once the father has been contacted. Instead, she will discharge her duty to sign the register by signing a declaration when she first attends. Therefore, when the birth is registered, once the father’s information has been obtained, the entry will be considered to have been signed by the mother.

Lords amendments 81, 87, 88 and 89 address an issue raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report published on 30 April. New section 2B(1) of our provisions will enable the information given by a mother under section 2A about her child’s father to be prescribed in regulations. This information is essentially contact information to enable the registrar to contact the man concerned in those exceptional cases in which a child’s parents are not co-operating with each other.

As currently drafted, the power to prescribe this information lies with the Registrar General, rather than with the Minister, and it is therefore subject to no parliamentary scrutiny. However, the report made clear the Committee’s view that the power is substantive in nature. The provisions under which the Minister has the power to make regulations are included in the list of relevant provisions set out under section 39A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, as inserted by this Bill. These amendments would include in that list of relevant provisions the regulation-making power conferred by new section 2B(1). They address the concerns of the Committee by seeking to ensure that the information given by a mother about her child’s father is prescribed by the Minister and subject to the negative resolution procedure. I commend the amendments to the House.

rose—

Order. The Minister has also made reference to other amendments in the group. The Lords amendment under discussion at the moment is Lords amendment 50, and the question is that this House agrees with Lords amendment 50.

I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to discuss Lords amendment 50 in relation to the travel authorisation provisions. I welcome the amendment from the Government. It follows a similar amendment that was tabled by my noble Friends Lord Freud and Lord Taylor on Report. There was a good debate on that occasion, in which Ministers made a commitment to return with a Government amendment. This amendment effectively delivers on that promise, and it was agreed with cross-party support in the other place.

This is a sensible amendment. I could never understand why the Government were treating the powers relating to driving licences and travel authorisations in different ways, but two good things have now happened. First, we are now treating them consistently and, secondly, because Ministers will have to report back to Parliament, the affirmative resolution procedure will give this House and the other place the appropriate powers to decide whether this significant sanction should be carried forward on a permanent basis. I welcome this Lords amendment and we give it our support.

The Minister is right to say that this represents a concession on the part of the Opposition parties, which understandably had grave reservations about allowing officials to have the power to withdraw passports, rather than it being done through a judicial process. I have to say that those reservations remain, but at least we now have the promise of a review after two years, at which point the matter will return to the House. I hope that whichever Government are in power at the time will take seriously the lessons learned from that process and be willing to conclude that doing this through officials rather than through the courts is not the way to proceed, if the evidence suggests that that is the case. I hope that the pilot will be undertaken with an open mind, and a willingness to accept the argument, to which we still hold, that judicial protection for these important civil liberties should remain enshrined in practice.

With the leave of the House, I am grateful for the agreement of the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and for Northavon (Steve Webb). With respect to the measure on travel documents, I hope that the evidence that we have obtained from experience abroad will be replicated, but, as the hon. Member for Northavon has acknowledged, we will make a full assessment of the pilots and bring the matter back to the House, so that all hon. Members can take a view. I also hope that he is satisfied that we are incorporating sufficient safeguards—notwithstanding his dislike of the word “safeguards”—in the administrative approach, so that people who are affected by the measures will feel that their civil liberties are protected. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment 50 agreed to.

Lords amendments 51 to 102 agreed to.

health Bill [Lords] (programme) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Health Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 June 2009 (Health Bill [Lords] (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Message

1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

2. Proceedings on any such Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mary Creagh.)

Question agreed to.