| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New Deal
3. Claire Ward (Watford) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal for lone parents. [153172]
The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The new deal for lone parents is just one of a raft of measures that we have introduced to help lone parents gain independence through work. Other measures include
our national child care strategy; the lone parent's benefit run-on; and the working tax credit, including the child tax credit. By the end of September 2003, more than 430,000 lone parents had participated in the new deal for lone parents and more than 220,000 had been helped into work. There is still more to do, but we have made major progress towards meeting our target of getting 70 per cent. of lone parents into work.
Claire Ward : I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for the impact that the new deal has made on lone parents. Has he seen recent research showing that the costs of child care are rising rapidly in the private sector and making it increasingly difficult for lone parents as well as two-parent families to secure work or be able to return to work and pay for child care provision? What discussions has my hon. Friend had with colleagues in other Departments about making child care affordable for lone parents as well as for two-parent families?
Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of good-quality, affordable child care in helping to secure a route out of poverty for families. Constant discussion takes place between officials and Ministers in my Department and those in the Department for Education and Skills and the Treasury. My hon. Friend will be aware of the announcements in the pre-Budget statement on making child care affordable, and she should be reassured that the Government are on track to meet their target on the roll-out of the national child care strategy. Indeed, there are currently more than 800,000 new child care places in the UK, from which 1.4 million children benefit.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): Will the Minister confirm whether, when a lone parent leaves—or is sacked from—a job after 14 weeks, the Government chalk it up as a success for the new deal in getting people into sustained employment?
Mr. Browne: The measures in place for measuring whether jobs are retained are fully in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman gleans his information in that way, but I have to say that it would be a sad day when the Government took advice from a party that, when in government, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) admitted, waged war on lone parents. We will take no advice from such a party on how we should conduct our policy on lone parents. The fact remains that, although the measurement is in the public domain, there is clear evidence to suggest that significant numbers of people who benefit from the new deal or the new deal for lone parents move on later into long-term and sustained work. That is why we can now celebrate the fact that about 500,000 children have been taken out of poverty in the UK.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): What improvements does my hon. Friend intend to make to the new deal for lone parents, and what assessment has he made of the impact of abandoning the programme?
Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that not all parties in the House support the measures in place in labour market programmes, which
have resulted in 1.7 million more people across the board in work today than in 1997, and 500,000 fewer people on unemployment benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my other ministerial colleagues and I are hell-bent on improving the labour market programmes and building further on them. My hon. Friend will be aware of the roll-out of work-focused interviews for lone parents, which provides them with an opportunity to find out what employment can do for them and their families to lift their children out of poverty. We move forward with that programme.Occupational Pensions
4. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): What plans he has to permit employers to compel employees to join final salary occupational pension schemes. [153173]
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government have no such plans. The independent Pensions Commission is examining whether greater compulsion is advisable. As we set out last week, we are looking at whether it makes sense to promote more general use of schemes that automatically enrol employees unless they chose to opt out and at how we can best ensure that an individual's decision to join or not to join an occupational pension is based on good information.
Kevin Brennan : I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. When my father joined the steel industry, he was compelled to join a final salary occupational scheme and, fortunately, that has seen him well in retirement. The Allied Steel and Wire workers were similarly compelled to join an occupational pension scheme. When people ask me, "Would you let what has happened to the ASW workers happen to your own father?" my answer is an unequivocal no. What would the Secretary of State's answer be to the same question?
Mr. Smith: I would share my hon. Friend's concern for the plight of those affected, as the Minister for Pensions, other ministerial colleagues and I have made clear on many occasions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's energy and commitment in campaigning on behalf of those who have lost out because of company insolvency. As he knows, we have been examining whether anything might be done, without wanting to raise false hope, and as soon as I am able to report further to the House I will do so.
Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab): As the Secretary of State knows, I am interested in ASW—ASW Sheerness is in my constituency—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who asked a question that was similar to questions that we have been asking in the House for the past couple of months: how do we get to the bottom of how many people's pension schemes are in deficit? If my right hon. Friend introduces a retrospective measure—we hope that he will—how will he know that it will cover everyone if there are differences of opinion between the Treasury, the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and other groups?
Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend suggests, identifying precisely who has lost out in that way is one of the many
dimensions of difficulty to this very challenging issue. As I said when he last raised this, other issues include how to differentiate between some who have lost out and others who have lost out in respect of eligibility; whether it is right to use taxpayers' money—let us remember that half of taxpayers are not members of occupational pensions schemes—to give extra help to that group; the risk of raising expectations that taxpayers stand behind private savings and pensions as a whole; and, not least, the risk of prejudicing the legal action that has been taken already. I mention those matters to show that we are carefully looking at the issue—including, as my hon. Friend points out, at the numbers affected—but I am not able today to say what the conclusion of that examination is.Antisocial Behaviour
5. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): What his policy is on the use of access to means-tested benefits as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour. [153174]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): As a matter of principle, we do not believe that the community has an unconditional responsibility to support those who do not fulfil their responsibilities to the community. We have introduced a range of tough penalties to deal with antisocial behaviour, which blights people's daily lives, including measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which came into force that month. Following consultation, I recently announced that we will not go ahead with a housing benefit sanction at this stage, but we do not rule out introducing further measures when we have seen how effective the range of measures already in place has been.
Mr. Swayne : That was most disappointing. The painfully slow pace at which the Government have been tiptoeing in the right direction has been frustrating. The Prime Minister pledged himself to that policy on 1 May last year, and the Government are now backing off. May we have an explanation?
Mr. Pond: We will take every practical measure necessary to deal with antisocial behaviour. [Interruption]. I wish that we could count on the support of the Opposition in that determination to deal with antisocial and loutish behaviour. I have reminded the House that in recent weeks we have introduced a number of new measures that are intended to deal with antisocial behaviour. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are extending the pilot schemes to sanction offenders who breach their community sentences. We will watch closely to see what effect those measures have, but if they do not have the effect of dealing significantly with antisocial behaviour we will not hesitate to look again at sanctions on housing benefit.
Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): The problem with benefit sanctions is that they can punish entire families when only one member may not be acting responsibly. Antisocial behaviour is a dreadful problem, not least in Redcar where almost every surgery I hold brings a new complaint. Will the Minister look with great care at schemes run and supported by organisations such as
Shelter in Rochdale and Bolton, among other places, that aim to change the behaviour of problem members of families? They are not at all softie stuff, so will he examine those schemes with care before he looks again at benefit sanctions?
Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments. We must, of course, use the full range of measures. Some of them will be positive; some of them will be negative such as sanctions. For example, in community sentences, we are balancing both the piloting of the sanctions with incentives for those who do not breach their community service orders. However, we must be aware that the community and all our constituents want to see us acting decisively using every practical measure that is available. Sanctions have been built into the social security system since 1911, when unemployment benefit was first introduced, for reasons that are still relevant today.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant) (Con): Will the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister was informed and consulted before last week's announcement to abandon housing benefit sanctions?
Mr. Pond: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, can be sure that the Prime Minister was fully aware of the decision. From the answer that he gave at Prime Minister's Question Time, it was very clear that he was aware of the decision.
Mr. Willetts: I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister was consulted, but when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him about the subject last Wednesday I did not gain the impression that the Prime Minister was fully aware of it. Therefore, I am very pleased to hear that he was consulted. It was put to him that he had specifically made a pledge in his 2002 conference speech that he would implement the measure, so what was his reaction when the Minister told him that he was abandoning the idea?
Mr. Pond: If I remember rightly, the Prime Minister was very grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for reminding him of his conference speeches. The Prime Minister also reminded the Leader of the Opposition, who had forgotten within a matter of days, that only very recently we introduced a full range of measures and brought them into force to deal with antisocial behaviour. We have made it absolutely clear that we will see how effective those measures are. If we need to use other measures, we will not hesitate to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |