My Lords, I am very appreciative of everyone’s contributions. A lot of issues have been explored, and although the Minister has been as fastidious and careful as he always is in trying
to respond to the points, I have to say that, on what is now our fifth day in Committee, I thought that his responses here have been less persuasive than they have been to almost all of our other debates. They will certainly require us to look very carefully indeed at the small print of his responses because I am not persuaded by almost any of his points.
Let me first thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord German, who I think actually used the word “cruel”. If the noble Lord wishes to resile from that, I apologise. I think that they all spoke very well and movingly about the situations in which families find themselves—not just singly bereaved but doubly bereaved. Sometimes the surviving partner or spouse may be seriously injured, which means that they cannot support a child in the family in the way they would wish. We know that such tragedies exist and the consequences multiply in what is a ripple effect for families for many years. That is especially the case when there are multiple losses. All sorts of feelings of guilt continue to plague unreasonably and irrationally but completely understandably, those who survive such a situation.
6 pm
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about the financial interlocking with the tax system. I gather that the Minister, although unable to give us a convincing answer on that yet, hopes to be able to help us further. The noble Lord, Lord German, was seeking a genuine improvement in a cost-neutral package, but 88% of people would be worse off as a result. Taking it all into consideration, perhaps half per cohort benefit and half lose out, but I do not think that other people possibly being better off makes the situation satisfactory for those who lose. Every family’s circumstances are different.
The Minister particularly emphasised the work conditionality issue, by which I am now completely baffled. I understand, although I do not support, his emphasis on the need for a cost-neutral package. I was very surprised by the Minister’s response on work conditionality to the absolutely apposite statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord German. An investment in support for children at that most vulnerable period may actually go on to support those children against the other risks they may face, particularly with mental health and depression. If we withdraw that support by imposing work conditionality, we do so not only at our risk but that of a significant cohort of those children who have been exposed to bereavement.
From my own personal knowledge, I can say that children—rightly—are stressed and numbed during that first year, and particularly as each anniversary comes round. The birthdays, the Christmases and the anniversary of the death are particularly difficult moments. That grief often reoccurs almost like flashbacks, a year, 18 months, two years or five years down the road. If there is not flexibility—something which is not understood in Jobcentre Pluses—around the implications of work conditionality for the parents, then those children will continue to suffer unnecessarily, beyond what we already know. The noble Lord, Lord German, rightly entrusted that—