The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Miss Anne
Begg
Abbott,
Ms Diane
(Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
(Lab)
Baron,
Mr. John
(Billericay)
(Con)
Beresford,
Sir Paul
(Mole Valley)
(Con)
Blackman,
Liz
(Erewash) (Lab)
Clappison,
Mr. James
(Hertsmere)
(Con)
Flint,
Caroline
(Don Valley)
(Lab)
Goodman,
Helen
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions)
Gray,
Mr. James
(North Wiltshire)
(Con)
Hodgson,
Mrs. Sharon
(Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab)
Rowen,
Paul
(Rochdale) (LD)
Smith,
Mr. Andrew
(Oxford, East)
(Lab)
Smith,
Geraldine
(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Lab)
Stanley,
Sir John
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
Stoate,
Dr. Howard
(Dartford)
(Lab)
Webb,
Steve
(Northavon)
(LD)
Wright,
David
(Telford)
(Lab)
Mr. M. Oxborough,
Committee Clerk
attended
the Committee
Fifth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday
23 February
2010
[Miss
Anne Begg in the
Chair]
Draft
Jobseekers Allowance (Lone Parents) (Availability for Work)
Regulations
2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Helen
Goodman): I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Jobseekers Allowance (Lone
Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations
2010.
May
I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss
Begg? The regulations, together with an explanatory memorandum, were
laid before the House on 20 January, and I can confirm that, in my
view, they are compatible with the European convention on human
rights.
I am pleased
to be here to present the regulations, which introduce a new right for
certain lone parents who receive jobseekers allowance. Provided
that a parents youngest child is 12 or under, the changes will
give them the right to restrict their availability for work to their
childs normal school hours.
We are
committed to helping parents to achieve the right balance between
working and caring for their children. This new right will give lone
parents with younger children the assurance that they will, if they
wish, be able to seek work that fits with their childrens
school
hours.
Caroline
Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): How does that impact in terms of
school holidays?
Helen
Goodman: The regulations will not enable people to work
fewer hours in school holidays than during the rest of the year. We
felt that that was reasonable because people will be getting tax
credits, which they can use to pay for child care in the holidays.
Saying that people do not have to work at all in the school holidays
would make it extremely difficult for them to find work at all. We feel
that that is the balanced approach.
Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Perhaps we can dispose
of one matter now. Will the Minister confirm that, under the existing
jobseekers allowance rules, if an adviser agrees that a lone
parent cannot find appropriate affordable child care during the school
holidays, the lone parent can be treated as being available for work
during that period, even though they are not
working?
Helen
Goodman: Yes, if the child care is very expensive and the
lone parents earnings are not adequate, the flexibilities in
regulation 13 of the Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 will
allow that.
We are
committed to helping parents achieve the right balance between working
and caring for their children, and the new right will give lone parents
with younger children the assurance that they need. Before we get under
way, I would like to outline some of the
regulations key aims and provisions. I would then like to
explain what we have already done to help lone parents back into
work.
Normally,
a person receiving jobseekers allowance is expected to be
available for, and to seek, full-time work of up to 40 hours a week.
That has been a core feature of unemployment benefit rules for many
years. However, those rules recognise that the personal circumstances
of some jobseekers may make full-time work difficult or impossible.
None the less, they still expect claimants to seek the work that they
can do or can be assisted to do. Consequently, there are a number of
flexibilities in the rules to allow people with real constraints on the
work that they can do to limit their hours of availability.
One existing
flexibility for our jobseekers allowance customers enables
parents with child care responsibilities to restrict their availability
for work to 16 hours a week in agreement with an adviser. Such
customers may restrict their availability even if there is no
reasonable prospect of finding employment given their restricted hours.
The new right introduced in the regulations builds on the flexibility
for lone parents in that group by providing them with an assurance that
they have a right to restrict their availability. It is a simple,
unqualified right, which focuses on lone parents whose children attend
school during conventional hours. It is appropriate and automatic. It
will cover the normal experience of the large majority of customers.
The new regulation is designed to enable lone parents to balance the
need to provide for their children with the need for their children to
grow up in a stable home with an involved parent.
By
understanding that lone parents have specific and difficult
obligations, the new right will mean that lone parents are not
inadvertently penalised for being less available for work. Our new
regulations are about balance and fairness. They recognise the
practical difficulties that lone parents face day to day, and that lone
parents looking for work should be given a right to greater leniency in
respect of the hours for which they are available. They do not penalise
two-parent households; they are equally able to limit their hours of
availability to 16 in agreement with an
adviser.
However,
the regulations also recognise that children aged 13 and above are more
capable of looking after themselves and require less parental support.
By the age of 12, almost all children will have started secondary
school and their family life will have adjusted. It is only fair that
we expect lone parents receiving jobseekers allowance to assume
a greater level of availability in their working
patterns.
Our
new regulations are flexible. They do not attempt to provide a
catch-all definition of school hours, because those are subject to
significant variation around the country. They do not attempt to
legislate for every possible variation of schooling arrangements or
child care responsibilities, because we recognise that statutory
measures would be too blunt a
tool.
Lone
parents whose childrens school hours fall outside a regular
pattern of attendance or are subject to other, specific circumstances
can instead make use of the existing flexibility that I have mentioned.
I am referring to jobseekers being able to discuss their individual
circumstances with an adviser and to agree hours tailored to their
availability. We want to foster an environment that is as conducive as
possible to getting lone parents into work, but we know that they are
the best people to
assess their own circumstances and availability. This new right will put
the decision-making power back in the hands of lone
parents.
This
change does not stand alone. We are proving our commitment to
establishing a greater balance for jobseekers with special commitments,
so that their children do not lose out in the course of our efforts to
help them find work.
I want to
remind hon. Members of what we have already done to help lone parents
back into work. The Welfare Reform Act 2009 introduced a range of
family-friendly measures designed to cater better to the needs of lone
parents. It ended the requirement that lone parents receiving income
support or employment and support allowance attend work-focused
interviews if they have a child aged under
one.
Since
last October, lone parents of children aged 10 and over claiming income
support have been required to move on to jobseekers allowance
if they are capable of work. From October this year, those with
children aged seven and over will have to do the same, and in limited
areas lone parents with children aged between three and six will be
expected to undertake activities that will help them to prepare for
work. We want lone parents to have the support they need to re-enter
work and for the transition to be as smooth as possible, so we have
guaranteed that lone parents with children under seven will not be
expected actively to seek work. Children benefit from involved parents
as much as they do from parents who can provide for themselves and
their families, so those adjustments further recognise the need for a
balance.
The
measures promote working and are effective. The changes in the lone
parent obligations will see about 150,000 people move from income
support to jobseekers allowance, providing them with better
opportunities to gain employment, as well as access to a professional
adviser. Our changes are fair and reasonable. Lone parents with older
children are no longer allowed to claim benefit solely on the basis of
their child care, but the new right fits in with a range of
flexibilities that we have brought in, including the ability of all
parents, whether single or not, to continue to claim jobseekers
allowance in the event of a family crisis that affects their
availability for work. Furthermore, the 2009 Act introduced provisions
requiring Jobcentre Plus advisers, when drawing up an action plan or a
jobseekers agreement, to consider the well-being of any child
affected by an agreement, regardless of the parental
status.
However,
let me be clear that this measure, to give lone parents the right to
limit their availability while claiming jobseekers allowance,
is not intended to undermine the Governments commitment to
support lone parents moving towards work. By recognising that lone
parents have to be flexible in their working patterns, we are accepting
the realities of their situation. I hope that hon. Members will accept
this new measure for the simple and important change that it
is.
4.39
pm
Mr.
Clappison: It is a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Miss Begg. As the Minister rightly said, the background
to this statutory instrument lies in the Governments
announcement in 2007 that they were going to move the lone parents of
older
children from income support to jobseekers allowance. That
announcement received the support of my party, which is not surprising
because it was something we had been suggesting. We are not looking to
place obstacles in the way of this measure, but we have a number of
questions about the way in which the scheme will operate.
It is
important to make it clear at the outset that the change is to be
introduced on a staged basis, according to the age of the youngest
child of the lone parent. In fact, the change has already begun. From
24 November 2008, lone parents claiming benefit solely on the ground of
being a lone parent and who were capable of work were required to claim
jobseekers allowance rather than income support if their
youngest child was aged 12 or over, so that provision has been in place
for a year for such parents. Parents whose youngest child is aged 10 or
over faced the measure from 26 October 2009, so that has just got
started. Parents whose youngest child is seven or over face the change
from 25 October this year.
On 26 October
2009, the Minister produced a written statement on the right of single
parents to restrict their availability for employment to school hours,
which forms the basis of this statutory instrument. The statement
said:
We
are referring to the Social Security Advisory Committee proposals for
new regulations under section 6 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 to allow
lone parents with a child aged up to 12 the right to restrict
availability for employment to hours that reflect the childs
normal term time school hours. The draft regulations will then be
submitted to Parliament for approval. Guidance to Jobcentre advisers
will ensure that this is implemented in
practice.[Official Report, 26 October 2009; Vol.
498, c.
6W.]
I
am curious about one point in that written statement. I do not want to
make too much of it, but I want very gently to probe the Minister about
it. Her written statement refers to a child aged up to 12. That could
lead to the interpretation that the right of the single parent to seek
employment in that way only lasts until the childs 12th
birthday. The measure was implemented and the statement made on 26
October. From that date onward, the childs 12th birthday was
established as the point at which the single parent would be moved from
income support to jobseekers allowance. However, when the
Minister then wrote to the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee
and the regulations were eventually issued, they referred to lone
parents who are responsible for a child under the age of 13, so a lone
parent retains the right to restrict their hours of employment in that
way until the child reaches his or her 13th
birthday.
Helen
Goodman indicated
assent.
Mr.
Clappison: The Minister is nodding, so I take that to mean
that that is the effect of what she is doing. Without wanting to make
too much of this, I would gently probe whether that has been the
Governments intention all along, or whether there has been some
change. Will the Minister say whether the Government intended to apply
the provision to parents of 12-year-old children, or whether there a
change of policy, and if so, why? If it was the Governments
intention all along that it should apply to the parents of
12-year-olds, why did the statement of 26 October refer to a child of
up to 12? Why did the Government choose 26 October to announce the
change for children on their 12th birthday when the parents of children
aged 12 had been subject to the new
regime for almost a year? I do not want to make too much of that, but I
would like the Minister to address that strange
coincidence.
Until
24 November 2008, it was possible for a lone parent whose youngest
child was under 16 to remain on income support. As has been said
already, the age limit changed to 12. We have had more than a
years experience of lone parents moving from income support to
jobseekers allowance when the youngest child has reached the
age of 12. We would like to glean some information about what has been
happening to single parents whose youngest children were aged under 12
since 24 November 2008. The explanatory memorandum
states:
A
comprehensive, multi-method evaluation of the new Lone Parent
Obligations is underway...The evaluation will begin to report from
February
2010.
Here
we are today, well into February 2010, so I was wondering whether the
Minister could share with us today any of the results yielded by the
evaluation. How many lone parents have moved from income support to
jobseekers allowance as a result of the changes since
24 November 2008 and, perhaps more importantly, how many of the lone
parents who have moved from income support to jobseekers
allowance have found a job? How many of those have found part-time
employment and how many full-time employment? If the Minister has any
information, it would be interesting to hear how many jobs have come
about as a result of what we are
discussing.
Does
the Minister have any information on the number and proportion of
parents in the same group who were moving from income support to
employment before the introduction of the changes on 24 November 2008?
It would be useful to compare how many lone parents have moved since
the change was made, and, once they have moved from income support to
jobseekers allowance, have then moved into employment, with the
number of such parents in the same position, with children in the same
age range, who were on income support but found jobs from income
support directly, without the move to jobseekers allowance,
before 24 November 2008. That would give us an interesting perspective
on the change of policy and allow us to evaluate just what was taking
place. If the Minister does not have those figures to hand, I would be
happy to receive a letter from her, but I would make the additional
request, if I may, having dealt with a number of these statutory
instruments, that the reply be reasonably
timely.
The
Minister mentioned the figure of 150,000 for lone parents moving from
income support to jobseekers allowance. Can she give us a
little more information about that and possibly give us a breakdown in
terms of the number of such parents who moved from 26 October 2009 when
their children were aged 10 and 11 and how many parents of such
children will be moving from 25 October this year when the
children will be in the seven, eight and nine age
category?
Let
me move on to a different subject. When the change began to be made in
November 2008, a number of additional flexibilities were introduced
into jobseekers allowance to deal with the particular
circumstance of single parents moving from income support to
jobseekers allowance. For members of the Committee who are
interested, those flexibilities are set out in annexe A of
the explanatory memorandum. As jobseekers, this group of single parents
could be liable to sanctions, because someone who fails to comply with
the directions of an adviser, for example, or with other requirements
of the more stringent jobseekers regime can be liable to
sanctions. Changes were made to the hardship payments regime for those
subject to sanctions so as to provide for the particular circumstances
of single
parents.
Since
November 2008, how many single parents have been sanctioned under the
jobseekers allowance regime and therefore how many of them have
become eligible for hardship payments? Sanctions cannot be imposed
where a jobseeker has good cause. The particular flexibilities for lone
parents provide that child care responsibilities will be taken into
account where a parent with child care responsibilities refuses or
fails to carry out a jobseekers direction or refuses to apply
for or accept a job because those responsibilities make it unreasonable
for them to stay in a job, take up a job or carry out a
jobseekers direction. How many times have good cause and just
cause been found on those
grounds?
Jobseekers
allowance regulations already allow parents with caring
responsibilities for a child to restrict their availability for work to
16 hours a week in agreement with an adviser. It would be interesting
to hear whether the Minister has anything further to say about how the
new right in these regulations for single parents to restrict their
availability for work to the childs normal school hours
interacts with the existing right that parents have to restrict their
availability for work to 16 hours a week in agreement with an
adviser. Presumably, such a parent has the right to restrict their
hours of work to 16 hours within their childs normal
school hours if, as seems likely to be the case, the childs
school hours are longer than 16 hours. Perhaps the Minister could
confirm that that is the case, and could she tell us what information
she has about the interaction of those two flexibilities?
The right
hon. Member for Don Valley has already raised the question of
jobseekers allowance and availability for work within school
holidays. On the existing jobseekers allowance rules where an
adviser can agree that a lone parent cannot obtain appropriate and
affordable child care during the school holidays, will the Minister
tell us whether the lone parent can be treated as being available for
work during that period? Has the Minister any information about the
operation of that provision, and how many such parents have been
treated as being available for work during school holidays when no
appropriate affordable child care was available?
We agree that
it is good for lone parents to work. We want to assist them into work
because it is good for them and their children. Their children have a
better outcome in life as a result of the parent being in work, which
is something that we have said all along. None the less, I am sure that
the Committee will understand that there are questions that have to be
asked.