Mr.
Clappison: I shall study the Minister’s words
carefully because the subject is important. We think that it is
reasonable to have a debate about the age at which such requirements
are placed on lone parents. We have no problem with the general vision
of getting people back to work and of conditionality in appropriate
circumstances. The Minister mentioned going further, and we will not be
slow to come forward with ideas about how the Government can go further
than they are at present—much further in some cases. He referred
to giving help to parents of children below the age of
three—help with interviews and making suggestions and assistance
available. There is no problem with that
either. What
is significant about the Government’s proposals, however, is the
way in which things change at the age of three. Some of the right hon.
Gentleman’s remarks were fair, but he referred to a mechanistic
approach on our part. However, when I look at the Government’s
proposals, I think mechanistic is rather a good word to use to describe
them. I will quote so that the Committee will know exactly the issues
at stake as we consider the
amendment “Age
of youngest child—1-2: Conditionality
Grouping—Progression to Work: Required to attend Work Focused
Interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake
any activities recorded on the action plan or any other activities,
although they will be encouraged to do so on a voluntary
basis...3-6: Progression to Work: Required to follow the full
progression to Work regime based around Work Focused interviews, action
plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser
direction.” We
apprehend, since it has not been said to the contrary, that those
parents will also be subject to the full rigour of the sanctions regime
in the same way as others in the sane conditionality
group. We
need to reflect on these important matters and to think carefully about
the question of age and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Paul
Rowen: I beg to move amendment 57, in
clause 2, page 4, line 26, at
end insert ‘unless the
person is caring for another person for 35 hours or more per
week.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 58, in clause 7, page 13, line 16, at
end insert— ‘(3A) In
exercising the powers contained in subsections (1) to (3) the Secretary
of State shall not require people caring for at least 35 hours per week
who are receiving income support to claim jobseeker’s
allowance.’. Amendment
59, in
clause 8, page 14, line 11, at
end insert ‘including any caring
responsibilities.’. New
clause 3—Review of carers’
benefits— ‘(1)
The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the benefits to which
carers are entitled, reporting to Parliament on the outcome of this
review no later than six months after the Welfare Reform Bill receives
Royal Assent. (2) The Secretary
of State must involve carers in this review and must publish a report
on the findings of the
review.’.
Paul
Rowen: Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments and
my party’s general views on the Bill, the Government are seeking
to introduce major changes in legislation. We will do two things. We
will put forward alternative policies and seek to amend what the
Conservative Opposition have described as mechanistic and what we would
describe as half-baked and ill thought-out.
Amendments 58
and 59 and new clause 3 are probing amendments that deal with issues
associated with carers and the carer’s allowance. Amendment 57,
which relates to clause 2, removes the requirement to engage in
workplace activity for a person who is caring for another person for 35
hours or more per week. The current lack of provision for carers does
not sit well with the research that the Department has carried out,
including the Gregg report. Some 230,000 people satisfy the criteria
for carer’s allowance—that is, they are caring for
someone for at least 35 hours a week and currently receive income
support or income-based JSA. We would welcome clarification that people
in that category will not be required to undertake work-focused
activity. That is consistent with what was set out in Paul
Gregg’s report, and which was confirmed in the White Paper: that
people providing substantial care should be in the no-conditionality
group.
There are
several other related issues, such as the current inadequacy of the
carer’s allowance, which is the lowest of all the income
replacement benefits at £50.55 a week. The earnings limit of
£95 a week prevents many carers from progressing into paid work,
and the rule banning more than 21 hours of study per week traps carers
on benefits and in low-status jobs. The allowance cannot be paid
alongside a state pension, so it leaves many older carers with no
recognition of their caring role or the assistance that they need with
the costs of caring. I am aware that the Government have promised to
overhaul the carer’s benefit, but that seems to have been
completely overlooked in the Bill. That is a disappointment. The
Government are committed to ensuring by 2018 that no carer is forced
into financial hardship by virtue of their caring role, as set out in
the national carers strategy, “Carers at the Heart of the
21st century: families and communities”, which was
published in June last year.
The Work and
Pensions Committee called in August last year for an overhaul of
carer’s benefits and set out a prescription for reform that
would tackle many of the problems I have just outlined. This clause
proposes that people receiving income support, income-based JSA or
income-based ESA will not be required to undertake work-related
activity, as specified in these regulations. I hope that the Minister
can give us that clarification, as well as saying why no opportunity
has been taken in the Bill to deal with some of the inequalities
relating to carer’s allowance. Amendment 58
amends clause 7 and, again, ensures that in exercising the powers the
Secretary of State will not require people to take part who are caring
for at least 35 hours and are receiving income support. This is a
probing amendment because we want to hear a commitment from the
Government that they will not move carers off income support until
there are clear and detailed plans setting out how the benefits system
will be reformed over the long term. There is a need for further
analysis of the ESA. The clause provides for the abolition of income
support. Carers
UK welcomed the commitment in the White Paper, “Raising
expectations and increasing support”, that carers receiving
income support will not be moved off it until there is a clear and
detailed plan setting out the long-term reform of the benefits system.
The proposal in the Green Paper, “No one written off”, to
move them to a modified version of jobseeker’s allowance caused
distress and anger among carers, who saw it as insulting to receive a
benefit that implied that they were not working already. Carers UK
would welcome a reiteration of the Government’s commitment. When
will we get further details of the clear and detailed
plan? Amendment
59 would add the instruction “including any caring
responsibilities”. Again, we want a commitment from the
Government that the changes in the Bill will not affect the commitments
that have been made to this very vulnerable group until we have the
long-term changes. That is also the purpose of new clause 3, which
includes a requirement on the Secretary of State
to “undertake
a review of the benefits to which carers are entitled, reporting to
Parliament on the outcome of this review no later than six months after
the Welfare Reform Bill receives Royal
Assent.” We
want carers to be involved in that review and the findings to be
published. Given
the Government’s previous commitments to carers, we believe that
the promise of a review within six months of the Bill receiving Royal
Assent will provide reassurance on the needs of carers. They undergo
discrimination at the moment and the caring duties that they carry out
are worth millions of pounds each year. Before some of the changes in
the Bill are introduced for carers, there should be a full review. I
hope for and look forward to the Minister’s commitment to
reaffirming and protecting the interests of carers, particularly in
relation to the
clause.
Mr.
McNulty: No one doubts that these are important matters.
As was said earlier, the broader notion that we should move to a
simplification of the benefits system and eventually to a single
working-age benefit is the right sentiment. However, perhaps we got
carried away in our enthusiasm for that journey when we insisted in the
Green Paper that carers would all transfer to jobseeker’s
allowance. I was happy to work with the Under-Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the
Member for Chatham and Aylesford, to review that aspect of the Green
Paper. [Interruption.] I am not allowed to say
“Jonathan”. For
the reasons suggested by many carers’ organisations, we have set
aside the notion that all carers should be transferred from IS to ESA.
One reason for that was that doing so would have suggested to carers
that they do not already have a job. In many instances, caring for
their family is very much a full-time job. We were very clear in the
White Paper—much read out by the hon. Member for
Rochdale—at least in spirit, that we would not be migrating, for
want of a better phrase, carers on IS to
JSA.
12.30
pm So
what are we left with? We are left with the hon. Gentleman asking me to
confirm the content of the White Paper, which, of course, I am very
happy to do. We made very clear in the White Paper, and in our response
to Professor Gregg, that we accepted his suggestion that anybody
involved in full-time caring, above the 35 hours that the
hon. Gentleman suggests in his amendments, should not be subject to
conditionality at all. That is the import of both amendments 57 and 58,
and given that we have said that as recently as in the White Paper, I
can confirm that full-time carers will not be subject to
conditionality. I hope that deals with amendments 57, 58 and
59.
New clause 3,
which calls for a review of carers’ benefits, is, again, what
was spelled out in the White Paper. I listened very carefully to the
hon. Gentleman, and he said almost word for word what I am implored by
officials to read out:
“As a
result we have amended our
proposal”— that
in the Green
Paper— “and
will not move carers from Income Support until we
have”— and
I think these were the exact words the hon. Gentleman used
— “a
clear and detailed plan setting out how we will reform the benefits
system over the longer
term.” That
commitment is, and remains, absolute. We are very mindful of the
contribution carers make in this country—that is beyond doubt
across all parties.
Much of what
the hon. Gentleman suggests about extra areas that need looking at will
be encompassed in that study. We may need to take a range of decisions
as this work progresses, including moving people to different benefits
under transitional arrangements. Many carers, however—as I am
sure the hon. Gentleman knows—want to work; some already receive
jobseeker’s allowance with the carer premium. But the Government
do appreciate that caring responsibilities often make it difficult or
impossible for carers to consider taking up paid employment, and we
have no intention of requiring carers to seek employment or of reducing
the level of benefit income they
receive. As
the hon. Gentleman also implied, last year we published “Carers
at the heart of 21st century families and communities”. This
followed the major review of our national strategy for carers, which
was an enormous consultation exercise. He will know that the income
taskforce, which was set up to examine the financial support available
to carers, focused particularly on carers’ benefits. Many of the
other points that he made—perfectly
valid ones—regarding some of the criteria for benefits will be
the focus of that taskforce, including the interface with that
study. Everyone
agrees that benefits for carers should be reformed over the long term.
We know also that, working with colleagues in the Department of Health,
we need to be far more integrated in our broader approach to carers
across government. We accordingly made a commitment to look at the full
picture not just in the context of longer term plans for welfare
reform, rather than piecemeal changes, but in the broader context of
what, from the social care side, we are doing with carers from the
health perspective.
There is a
new standing committee on carers, which is overseeing the delivery of
the overall carers’ strategy. Much of what we determine in the
wider reform of carers’ benefits will feed into that process. I
can therefore absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that his amendments
on 35 hours and full-time carers and on the migration of carers from IS
to jobseeker’s allowance, and the broader points that he makes
in new clause 3, are covered in the White Paper. I say in the gentlest
of terms that, given what I have said, his amendments and the new
clause are not required. While I accept the spirit in which he made his
case, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Paul
Rowen: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments.
In our view, it was important that those commitments be read into the
record. Given that we have got those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Clappison: I beg to move amendment 6, in
clause 2, page 5, line 12, leave
out paragraph
(e).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 14, in
clause 3, page 10, line 24, leave
out subsections (2) and
(3).
Mr.
Clappison: Amendment 6 refers to a specific point in the
context of work-related activity requirements for partners: the
work-related activity requirement for partners where a claimant has
more than one partner—in other words, where there is a
polygamous relationship. Polygamous relationships are recognised
elsewhere, in social security legislation and policy, but we would like
a bit more detail from the Government about what will happen in this
instance.
Subsection
2D(2)(e) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 establishes a
regulation-making power for determining, in the case of a claimant in a
polygamous marriage, which of the partners is required to undertake
work-related activity—or, indeed, whether all the partners are.
The purpose of this amendment is to ascertain the principles that will
lie behind this process, since nothing is said in the notes on clauses
about the principles that will operate. On the face of it, it appears
that a number of questions have to be answered. For example, in which
cases will one, some or all of the partners be required to meet the
requirements? If only one or some of the partners are required to meet
the work-related activity requirements, how will the decision be made
as to which one, or ones? There is no clue in the Bill or
elsewhere as to how these decisions will be made. Therefore, we think it
a proper use of parliamentary scrutiny to ask the Minister for a bit
more detail as to how this will work in practice and what principles
will be adopted to determine these
issues. Amendment
14 simply deals with the same issue in a different context—that
is, in respect of a joint claim for jobseeker’s allowance. That
raises the question of who are to be regarded as joint claimants and
whether there is a joint claim for jobseeker’s allowance. Again,
how will that be determined? Which of the partners will be part of the
claim, and which will
not?
| 
