| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Let me deal with an amendment that we welcome. It represents a new development and is about a different subject. The Minister mentioned Lords amendment 25 and he was right about it. Under it, the Secretary of State would be required to exercise existing regulation-making powers to provide that victims of domestic violence can, for 13 weeks, start or continue a claim for jobseeker's allowance without being available for employment. That is a good idea, which we welcome. It is in line with what we proposed in a strategy paper in December 2008, when we suggested a three-month period of grace, during which women who were housed in refuges should be exempt from the requirement to seek work to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. It is right that we recognise the stresses, strains and problems that such women face at that unfortunate time in their lives. We accept that women who are the victims of domestic violence will have suffered considerable emotional distress and find themselves dealing with several practical issues, making it difficult for them to find work.
We remain concerned about Lords amendment 2 and the Government's motion to disagree. I say to Labour Members that our position on lone parents with children aged under five has been consistent throughout. If one examines the history, the Government have some questions to answer about their consistency on the matter. Originally, in the Green Paper of July 2008, they chose five as the age at which the requirements should be imposed. Barely six months later, they unilaterally lowered the age to three, without giving any justification, in response to the Gregg report on conditionality.
In March, because we supported the Government's original proposal-that five was the appropriate age-the then Secretary of State accused us of opposing the whole Bill and of using our view on age to block welfare reform. On Third Reading, he said:
"This Bill has gone through despite the opposition of Her Majesty's Opposition and it has gone through as a Labour Bill. They said that it would go through only with their support; it has gone through despite their opposition. That shows that they are not serious about welfare reform."-[ Official Report, 17 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 865.]
I shall leave it to the House to judge, but there was no such talk from the Minister today. In March we were portrayed as the determined opponents of welfare reform in the Government's eyes, whereas today, if one judges from what was said on "Today" earlier, we are the dangerous proponents of welfare reform. The Government should make up their mind about their attitude to welfare reform. They are currently oscillating-saying one thing, then another. They are all over the place.
There is an important matter at stake-the single issue that lies between us. Although we broadly support the Bill, we are concerned about the financial sanctions. Given that we are considering children as young as three and four, and lone parents, with the financial pressures that they face and all the stresses in their lives, the Government must make a better case against the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords if they propose imposing a regime of such sanctions on lone parents. We have not heard that case today, and we remain concerned about the matter. We believe that the House of Lords was right and nothing that we have heard so far from the Labour Benches has dissuaded us.
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): 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.
Mr. Grogan: 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.
Steve Webb: 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.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): 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.
Steve Webb: 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.
Jim Knight: 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?
Steve Webb: 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.
4.45 pm
Jim Knight: 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?
Steve Webb: 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.
Jim Knight: 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.
Steve Webb: 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?
Ms Abbott: 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.
Steve Webb: 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.
John Mason: 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.
Steve Webb: 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.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |