Kitty
Ussher: I am grateful for the cross-party support for the
overall policy thrust, and I firmly believe that the regulations are
the right way to proceed. Members will have noticed that I have an
extremely long list of questions. The Opposition are right to have
asked them, and, with your permission, Mr. Key, I shall
attempt to answer as many as possible, in the order that they were
asked. On
the apparent discrepancy between the figures that I used and those in
the SSAC explanatory memorandum, my figures are correct—they are
more up to date than the others. I am sure that the hon. Member for
Hertsmere will be delighted to hear
that. The
hon. Gentleman requested that I go into a little more detail about
circumstances of exceptions and the additional protections that we are
introducing for lone parents. I will run through
those. When
a lone parent completes a Jobcentre Plus adviser agreement—the
contract between the client and the Department for Work and
Pensions—they will be able to restrict the hours of availability
to 16 hours a week. Other claimants will not be able to do that. The
period for taking a job is extended to 28 days if the parent can show
that seven days is not reasonable—for example, they may need
more time to arrange child care. The period for attending a job
interview is extended to one week if the parent can show that 48 hours
is not reasonable, presumably because of child care arrangements.
Jobcentre Plus staff will also consider whether travel time to a job is
reasonable, taking into account health and caring responsibilities, and
will include any reasonable time required to drop off and pick up
children from school or child care. That is an additional
flexibility. The
hon. Gentleman asked how additional flexibilities would be provided if
a serious crisis or bereavement in the family put extra burdens on the
parents. I should like to make it clear that the new provisions are for
all parents, because a gap in the existing regulations
was
highlighted when we introduced the new regime specifically for lone
parents. For all parents, advisers can use their discretion once in any
12-month period to waive for a maximum of eight weeks the requirement
to be available, if there is a death or serious illness of a close
relative or close friend of the jobseeker—presumably, that would
apply to their children as well—or if a domestic emergency
arises in relation to the customer, a close relative or a close friend.
I repeat: that will apply to all
parents. The
hon. Gentleman asked what principles would guide Jobcentre Plus staff
when assessing individual cases. The principle is one of
reasonableness. We need not drill down further into that—a
sensible person knows what is reasonable. It is right for the adviser
to debate that with the claimant on a case-by-case basis. It is not for
legislators to try to define reasonableness; it is a term commonly
understood in
law. The
Conservative and the Liberal Democrat spokespeople rightly raised the
issue of home educators. That gives me an opportunity to clarify our
views in that regard, which is important. We completely respect the
right of parents to home educate their children; however, we do not pay
for them to do so. They carry on receiving income support if they wish
to home educate their children. When I say that we accept the right of
parents to home educate their children, that is as long as the local
authorities consider the education to be suitable. That was tested
through the courts; the case was Phillips v. Brown in 1980. If
the education is not suitable, the local authority has the power to
issue a school attendance order, but none of that is relevant in this
case. I am simply clarifying that we are not attempting to make it
harder for lone parents to home educate their children if that is what
they seek to do and the provision is
suitable. I
see no reason why a parent of a child over seven cannot successfully
home educate their child and work part time. It is not common sense to
presume that just because a child is at home, they are being educated
all the time; nor should one presume that just because a child is home
educated, they are unable to be cared for or appropriately looked after
in child care when they are not in their lessons at home. That is why
the provision applies to home
educators. Rob
Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Does my hon.
Friend agree that it is something of an anomaly, albeit perhaps an
understandable one, that individuals can receive income support when
they are working—namely, home educating? If they are taking the
home education of their children seriously, that is work, yet they are
also drawing income
support.
Kitty
Ussher: Perhaps the logical conclusion to the direction
that the hon. Member for Hertsmere is going in is that someone should
be paying the parent to home educate their child. We do not think that
appropriate, although we recognise the right of people to home educate
their children. An important point, however, is that at the moment
appropriate child care may not be available for the hours of the day
when home educators seek it in order to be able to take the work that
is available. We consider that there will be a feedback loop involving
Jobcentre Plus, the child care partnership managers and the local
authorities to ensure that suitable
child care is available for everyone seeking work, including home
educators. I hope that that will lead to local authorities considering
what atypical hours of child care they might be able to
provide.
Jenny
Willott: Will the Minister clarify whether Jobcentre Plus
advisers will be given the discretion to take into account the fact
that a parent is home educating a child? When considering what would be
a reasonable job for them to take, will advisers be able to take into
account not just child care issues, but the fact that parents are
spending time home
educating?
Kitty
Ussher: Yes, but advisers will also take into account the
fact that home educators have more flexibility in the hours in which
they educate their children. However, there is no attempt for Jobcentre
Plus advisers to say to people that, because they have to work, they
cannot home educate. That is absolutely not the intention of what we
are doing. None the less, home educators obviously have some
flexibility in the hours that they are teaching compared to other hours
when the children are at home and that will be taken into account when
a Jobcentre Plus adviser considers the jobs that are available and the
working hours for those jobs.
The
Conservative spokesman asked if we were encouraging more lone parents
to get into debt. I absolutely refute the tone of those remarks, which
I think is misleading. It is simply the case that income support is
paid weekly in arrears, whereas JSA and ESA are paid fortnightly in
arrears, so there is a slight transitional problem. However, the
entitlement remains the same and there is not a gap in the way that
people will receive their benefits. That is why Jobcentre Plus,
anticipating that problem, will provide early advice on budgeting to
everybody affected by the change, which we hope will solve most of the
problems, because the amount of money received will not decrease. It
may therefore be possible for people to make their own arrangements, so
that the phasing of the payments does not cause them a
problem.
Where people
are not able to budget for what I would call a cash flow problem for a
week, starting from next month phase 1 applicants will be able to
apply, as hon. Members have said, for a lone parent transition loan.
That will be organised through the crisis fund, because that is simply
the easiest way to do it. However, it may be that people can pay the
loan back a week later. We are talking about a cash flow problem, not a
major debt.
The next
relevant point is that the Department is quite rightly considering the
periodicity of how people receive benefits, to ensure that it is not a
disincentive for people to work and that it does not create extra
complexity when people move between benefits and work, as is, of
course, extremely common. This project will be implemented from April
next year to cover the gap, and many more people will be affected by
the wider project. People will be entitled to a one-off payment of 75
per cent. of their weekly benefits; that will be the case for all those
people to whom this change applies. That money will then be repaid
through the benefits system over 12 weeks, which is reasonable. The
alternative would be potentially to leave people with a temporary hole
in their finances. Our proposal is a sensible way
forward.
Mr.
Clappison: I think that many people on low incomes would
feel that they got into debt as a result of cash flow problems.
However, the concern that I want to express to the Minister is that the
Government are designing a system that appears to envisage people
getting into debt.
In their
response to the Social Security Advisory Commission, the Government
said:
“Jobcentre
plus is developing arrangements to streamline the administration of the
Lone Parent Transition Loan under the Social Fund provisions, so lone
parents have quick access to the financial support for which they are
eligible.” The
Minister has conceded that in her remarks, so I want to ask her if we
cannot do a little better than a system that envisages lone parents
getting into debt as a result of the change that the Government
themselves are making to the system. Perhaps she can tell us whether
the Government have any estimate of the number of lone parents who will
take out social fund loans.
Kitty
Ussher: We accept that there is a wider question about
periodicity than the hon. Gentleman is raising, which is why an
enormous amount of work will be carried out to change the system,
starting from April 2009. However, I dispute the claim that we are
encouraging people to get into debt.
Mr.
Clappison: This is the design of the
system.
Kitty
Ussher: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position,
says that we are designing the system inappropriately. We are where we
are and we have decided to implement wider improvements to the way that
benefits are paid in order to solve that problem. The problem is, in a
sense, already in the process of being fixed.
It is simply
a fact that income support is paid weekly and JSA and ESA are paid
fortnightly. We are not encouraging people to get into debt; we are
simply creating a mechanism to ensure that people do not automatically
have a gap in payment for a week, on the presumption that, when they
get the first two weeks of their JSA payment, they will be able to pay
back the loan. That is extremely different from mounting up a debt
through reckless decision making on the part of the individual, which
the hon. Gentleman is implying we are trying to
do.
Mr.
Clappison: I am not implying that at all. I am implying
that the people concerned will incur a debt as a result of the system
that the Government are putting in place. Those people are on very low
incomes and the Government should take that into consideration. We know
from what has happened with tax credits that the problems that people
get into when systems are designed to put them into debt can have
long-lasting consequences. Surely the Government owe a duty to those
people to try to prevent them from having to get into debt as a result
of the system itself, rather than as a result of their own
decisions?
Kitty
Ussher: I do not think that the two scenarios are
comparable. As I have said, we will be talking people through the
changes and supporting them to make the necessary alterations to their
budgets. If they are unable
to do so, we will tide them over. Theoretically, they will be in debt
for a matter of days and will then pay it off. If we did not provide
that opportunity—in no way will it be compulsory—the
alternative would be that those people might have to go to
high-interest providers, which would be a serious problem. I think that
the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a mountain out of a
molehill.
Mr.
Clappison: The Minister has been generous in giving way,
but if she does not have the figures available today, perhaps she could
write to me to state how many people the Government expect to have to
take out social fund loans. The Government have obviously been planning
for that to happen, so would she tell us how many people will fall into
that
position?
Kitty
Ussher: I do not have those figures because cases will be
considered individually, according to the circumstances. The general
principle is that we are supporting people to make those changes, doing
everything we can to ensure that that is made as easy as possible for
the client, and supporting them to improve their family income both for
their benefit and for their
children’s.
Rob
Marris: Is any interest charged on social fund
loans?
Kitty
Ussher: At present,
no. On
the question about DLA paid at the lower level, the hon. Member for
Hertsmere is right to say that the exemptions apply when DLA is paid
for the child at the middle or higher rate component. That is not the
case for the lower level simply in recognition of the fact that less
support is required for such children. However, the crucial point is
that the whole system depends upon appropriate child care being
available, and the test of reasonableness is used when that is being
discussed. If a child has a particular need owing to a disability or to
other factors and appropriate child care is not available for them from
the local authority, that would be considered a reasonable reason for
being considered unavailable for work by the Jobcentre Plus adviser. We
think that that will cover children on the lower level of
DLA. The
hon. Gentleman asked about fostering versus adoption. The exemption for
fostering does not apply to adoption simply in recognition of the fact
that foster parents often, although not always, end up dealing with a
relatively complex and chaotic situation of a child with complex needs.
That might be for a short or long period of time, so we felt that it
was not appropriate that the regime should apply to foster parents
because of the variety of circumstances that could be presented.
Adoption, by definition, is a long-term situation, and we think that it
is right that the parents should be considered as though they were the
natural parents of the child.
Several hon.
Members have mentioned the effect of devolution on the policy. I am a
supporter of devolution, but it follows that it is the responsibility
of the devolved Administrations to make appropriate arrangements. Both
the Scottish and Welsh Administrations have said that they do not
anticipate any problems. If problems arise, it is for them to solve,
and I am sure that the electorate in those nations will make their
views clear.
I am extremely
grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central for the excellent
points she raised. She asked precisely how many parents will move into
work, over what time frame they will do so, and to what extent that
will change in the changing economic circumstances. I am loth to put a
precise figure on it, because this Government’s policies will
have an important and extremely positive effect on the number of lone
parents who are able to move into work and raise themselves and their
families out of poverty, but it is not the only factor that will
determine whether they end up in work. We think that it is a
significant factor—indeed, external research suggests that about
half of success in getting lone parents into employment is due
specifically to the work done under the new deal for lone parents.
However, the other half is due to external economic factors. The
Government publish economic forecasts twice yearly, and they change, so
I do not want today to put a specific figure on what the situation will
be in
2013. We
have, however, estimated that the changes will help at least 75,000
extra lone parents into employment over five years. Lone parent
employment has increased by 11.6 per cent. since 1997, or an extra
320,000 lone parents. The new deal for lone parents helped 500,000 lone
parents into work, of whom 60 per cent. entered sustained employment.
We feel that our policies could have a positive impact, but we will
review the situation continuously as the measures are
implemented.
| 
