HL Deb 28 February 2005 vol 670 cc97-8

8.17 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 February be approved. [8th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, I can be equally brief or more extended, as your Lordships wish.

Basically, we are running pilots to ensure, as far as we can, that men and women in the age group 50 to 59 remain within the labour market by increasing what we call their intensive activity. We brought regulations for pilots to the House a year ago. We are dealing with small numbers. As we said at the time, we need to run these pilot schemes for two years to see whether the intensive activity style that we are introducing is as effective as we hope it will be at keeping people within the labour market. Regulations could be made for only one year at a time, therefore we need your Lordships' consent to extend those same powers for a further year. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I have only one query. It is actually two orders that we are debating under this heading and, despite intensive scrutiny, I could not distinguish the difference between the two. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, there was similar confusion when I introduced the two regulations the first time.

The two regulations start at different times. Some pilots started three months ahead of the other pilots. We needed two regulations then to continue for 12 months and we need two regulations now to continue for a further 12 months.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

My Lords, "intensive" seems to be the mot de jour, or mot de soir in this case.

Let me make it clear that we support the general principle behind the intensive activity period for 50 to 59 year-olds, but we have reservations about the imposition of a mandatory system. Reports published by the DWP show the negative impact of benefit sanctions. There is even a recent University College, London study showing a link between claimants disappearing off the register due to sanctions and a small increase in crime. The key for us is that increased support for the over-50s to get back to work should be matched by a much stronger pension system so that that age group is not driven into work by fear of poverty in retirement.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I entirely agree with that. The best way in which to ensure that people do not carry poverty through into their old age is to keep them in the labour market as long as possible—and we are doing that. The noble Lord asked about sanctions. He is obviously right: we would be failing if at the end of the day we did not work with the grain of what most people believe is decent and sensible. Something like 800 people have been involved in the pilot so far, and only three have had to be sanctioned because they failed to turn up. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we are working with informed choice, which, as he said, is something that we are all in favour of.

On Question, Motion agreed to.