Q
63John
Howell: And that view would apply whether we were in
recession or
not? Tim
Nichols: That view of the effective way of working
with that group would,
yes. Kate
Bell: Like the CPAG, our view on this is
evidence-based. We are interested in what works in respect of getting
parents back to work. The Department for
Work and Pensions published its own research last summer, saying that
the impact of sanctions on single parents’ decisions about work
was negligible. That research looked at the actual barriers to people
taking up jobs, such as child care, lack of flexibility around working
and difficulties with caring for children with disability and health
issues. We have seen a big increase in single-parent employment over
the last 10 years without the impact of sanctions. We do not think
sanctions are the most effective way of achieving this
change. Fiona
Weir: May I add to that by looking pragmatically at
what is going on? A lot of experience shows that while the job entry
rate for lone parents is very good, 29 per cent. of them are
back on IS within a year. There is an issue about how to keep people in
work. Similarly, while there has been a huge success with Government
programmes such as the new deal for lone parents, there are barriers
when you pursue a “work first” approach too strongly. You
risk getting people into low-paid jobs rather than sustainable
longer-term work opportunities. It takes the emphasis off skills
building. You get into a risk of cycling where people go into a
low-paid job, fall back out again, get into debt and suffer the
consequent problems. There is a need to look pragmatically at how to
support people along a path of working with their aspirations, building
their skills and getting the work path right for their personal
circumstances. We want something to work long term to get that family
out of poverty, rather than lots of churning through a system that does
not achieve that
goal.
Q
64John
Howell: Having heard that, I am not sure you are nearer
consensus, and you may actually be further apart. Do you want to come
back on
that? Martin
Narey: There is not a consensus on conditionality. We
disagree. We agree on most things to do with child poverty but there is
a difference of view on this
issue.
Q
65John
Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): This question follows on from
that last point on conditionality. I noticed as well, Mr.
Narey, that you had said you were more in favour of conditionality. I
wonder whether that is in favour of conditionality whatever the level
of benefits. Or are you saying that the present benefits are excessive
and therefore families could afford to lose a bit? Or would you be in
favour if benefits were higher and the extra bit of benefits could be
conditional? Martin
Narey: I certainly do not think there is an extra bit
of benefits. I think our benefits are very low and families living on
benefits, as well as some families with one or more parents in
full-time work, are frequently in dire poverty, by any measure. There
is a wider issue for the Government to do something about that. That
presents formidable problems in protecting children if you are applying
sanctions to benefit levels that are already very low. I have been
critical of the Government many times in recent years, not least on
issues of child poverty, but both in conditionality of benefits and the
allied and important subject of conditionality for getting 16 and
17-year-olds back into work or training, the Government are grasping
some difficult nettles that need grasping. We cannot allow young people
to be damaged by decisions made very early in their lives or decisions
made by their parents.
Q
66John
Mason: May I press you on that? I understand that some
Nordic countries have conditionality but starting from a higher base.
What happens to a family that is on the minimum when you take that
away? Do they steal or do the grandparents have to
pay? Martin
Narey: That is a very real problem and I do not have
a ready answer. I am saying that in principle, despite those problems,
the Government are right to look at conditionality because the ultimate
prize is getting a family out of long-term poverty. We know the
probability that a child brought up in poverty in a workless family
will bring their own children up in poverty. The potential break in
that cycle is worth exploring. Of course, you have to ensure that
children are reasonably protected. Some people refuse to work. We
cannot dodge that. Although I accept entirely that most people who are
unemployed want to work, there are some people who simply do not want
to and resist any attempt to get them to work. That is very damaging
for them and it is appalling for their
children.
Q
67John
Mason: May I ask the other groups how they would look at
that? Would you accept conditionality if there were an extra element
above the minimum that could be taken
away? Kate
Bell: It is instructive, again, to make the
comparison with employment and support allowance. The Government have
said that there is a level below which adult benefits should not fall,
but that they will pay an additional premium to those who take steps to
get back to work. We reiterate that we are disappointed that that is
not the approach that has been taken for single
parents. Responding
to your question about what happens to people when they get sanctioned,
the research shows that people have to borrow from family and friends.
They often suffer from financial hardship and increased stress, neither
of which are good conditions for moving back to work. Your point about
the adequacy of benefit levels is very important.
Eddy
Graham: The sanctions regime in the
British welfare state has been directed at jobseeker’s allowance
claimants—people who are required to be available for work, who
do not have health conditions and who are actively seeking work. It has
now been extended to whole groups of people who have health problems
and child care responsibilities, and lone parents. The impact of
substantial cuts in benefit on those groups is bound to be greater than
on those on jobseeker’s allowance, 80 or 90 per cent.
of whom leave the benefit within six months anyway because they find
other work for themselves or move into education or training. The
impact on families, children and sick and disabled people is one of our
major concerns.
You are right
to say that a fair amount of cherry-picking takes place when new
schemes are devised. The Nordic countries that have fairly
comprehensive social insurance schemes that protect people from poverty
ally that with a high level of conditionality. In this country,
claimants are being asked to do more and more in worsening economic
conditions for nothing else—for benefits that still leave them
below the poverty line.
Q
68John
Mason: Mr. Nichols, I think you said that if
people are going to move into work, it must be well-paid work. Can you
clarify or expand on that? Am I right to say that the minimum
wage of £5.73 is not well- paid work?
Tim
Nichols: That is not enough to lift an awful lot of
families out of poverty. We believe that the current level of the
national minimum wage is too low. We do not want to see a situation
whereby, because of sanctions and conditionality in the welfare system,
parents are pushed from of out-of-work poverty into in-work poverty in
which they do not see any benefit to their income or to their family.
All they get is a net loss of time, and as a consequence their set of
attitudes to work changes in quite a negative
way.
Q
69Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): I should like to draw
the attention of the witnesses to two other parts of the Bill. First,
some proposals have been put forward on part 3 on the amendments on
child maintenance. Specifically, the powers that the Child Maintenance
and Enforcement Commission has to confiscate driving licences and
travel authorisations have to be taken through the court process.
Ministers contend that that is not effective and want to move to an
administrative process. I am interested to hear each of your comments
on that and whether you think that that would effectively achieve the
end result, which is getting more absent parents to pay maintenance. If
you broadly support that approach, do you think that any changes need
to be made to the Bill as a
result? Fiona
Weir: The first thing to say is that after all these
years of trying to enforce better child maintenance systems, we still
have a situation in which only one in three parents are receiving
maintenance for their children, which is little short of scandalous and
leads to a number of children remaining in poverty. The estimates show
that if all the non-resident parents who were currently assessed as
required to pay actually paid up, it would lift another 100,000
children out of poverty. It is important to understand the vital
importance of stepping up enforcement.
Having said
that, and while we are strongly supportive of giving CMEC a lot more
enforcement powers, it will be extremely important for the Committee to
examine very carefully how the administrative changes would work. It
will require very scrupulous measures to examine the issue of wilful
and culpable neglect by the non-resident parent and it will be
necessary to be really sure about the transparency of the appeals
process so that the non-resident parent affected has proper warning and
opportunity to appeal against the decision should they wish to do so.
The reason that is so important is not just because of the obvious
issues of fairness and so on; if there is a backlash, a sense of
unfairness, it will be counter-productive as we step up the enforcement
powers. It is important that we do not create a sense of there being
martyrs when the problem that we are trying to tackle is that of people
who are not contributing to their child’s upbringing. Being
sensitive to the need to get that right is important for the Committee
as it looks at the fine
detail. It
is also important to consider some other things. The evidence shows
that where it is safe, it is in the interests of children for both
parents to engage. If a non-resident parent needs their car to see
their child, it is important that you do not take away their driving
licence. Getting that kind of detail right is important. We also urge
the Committee to look at extending the review period of 24 months that
applies to the driving
licences to the provisions for passports. The motivation behind the Bill
is well driven and there is much that we are supportive of, but getting
the details right is
crucial. Q
70Mr.
Harper: Before I ask the others to comment—perhaps
they can comment on this piece as well—do you see any evidence
from the work that you do with families and both, if you like, the
remnants of the Child Support Agency and the new cases dealt with by
CMEC that the accuracy of the assessments is such that the enforcement
powers would be used accurately and that the right people would be
targeted? Do you have any sense of that having
improved? Kate
Bell: These processes are being used as an absolute
last resort. A long process of enforcement will have taken place where
the non-resident parent will have had multiple opportunities to say,
“I think my assessment is wrong.” We are seeing these as
a last resort, but once the process has been followed, we think that we
probably need some kind of backstop there to say, “You have an
obligation and you need to pay
maintenance.” Tim
Nichols: The Child Poverty Action Group has less
knowledge and expertise in this area than Gingerbread, so I will be
brief. We do not really know enough about the accuracy of assessments
to comment. We believe that improving enforcement is important because
of the potential that that has to lift more children out of poverty. We
recognise that that might require new and stronger powers for CMEC. We
urge caution in consideration of the specific proposals on driving
licences, on the grounds that it may have an impact on child contact
with a non-resident parent and on the livelihood of a non-resident
parent. Martin
Narey: I am afraid that I am going to break the
consensus a little again. I have spent a lot of my time visiting our
400 projects around the UK. I was in a Sure Start centre on Friday and
saw there what I always see: mums by themselves bringing up two or
three children in the complete absence of the father. There is a
complete absence of any contribution from the father—economic or
emotional. I would be very hard-line on bringing those fathers to
account, both to make them fulfil their responsibilities to the
children and to discourage future fathers from behaving fecklessly and
irresponsibly and leaving young mums in the
lurch.
Q
71Mr.
Harper: The second area that I wanted to touch on was part
4 of the Bill on birth registration. I want to get a quick sense of
whether you think the provisions in the Bill will be effective in
practice in encouraging fathers—that is whom it is largely aimed
at—to take more responsibility, both in acknowledging their role
as the father and in
contributing. Kate
Bell: We are concerned about part 4 of the Bill. We
are obviously extremely keen to see fathers involved in their
children’s lives as much as possible, but although the problem
of sole registration is small and declining, we do not think that the
best way to achieve greater father involvement is through legislation.
Some research by the DWP indicated that the decision was often being
taken long before that point and was very much dependent on the kind of
relationship that was going on at that point. Although we would very
much like to see programmes and projects to promote early involvement
during pregnancy, for example, we have some concerns about the
effectiveness and feasibility of doing that through
legislation.
One
particularly concern we have is that single parents who feel that it
would be unsafe to put their former partner’s name, or that of
the father of their child, on the birth certificate be protected. A
proposed clause in the legislation states that such parents will be
able to exclude themselves from the joint birth registration proposals,
but we need a bit more detail on how exactly that will work and the
kind of evidence they will have to provide in such a
situation.
Q
72Mr.
Harper: I wanted to focus on responses in terms of the
Bill’s effectiveness. My reading of the Bill—I am sure
others will correct me if I am wrong—is that it is actually weak
in terms of the compulsory element, because simply not knowing the
father’s whereabouts is a sufficient reason for the mother not
to put his name down. To be honest, I am not entirely sure that will
make a terribly big impact on registration, but let us assume that it
will. I just wanted to focus on its effectiveness, so your response was
very
helpful. Tim
Nichols: Again, this is not really an area of our
expertise. If the focus is going to be on effectiveness, I think one of
the key things that can be done is simply to better resource the
enforcement. Martin
Narey: I do not have anything to
add.
| 
