| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In the past, we would have had—I benefited from it—support from grandparents. My mother did not work. Nowadays, grandparents work, so they are not there for parents to fall back on. If a child is ill and needs someone to sit with them, the grandparents are not there to do it. It is most important that parental support and the lack of disruption in the child’s life when it is tiny should be maintained. Therefore, I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for this amendment, which has given us a good start in these Committee proceedings to have a general and, in some respects, a detailed discussion also around some key provisions in the Bill. The amendment seeks to exclude single parents who have children under school age—although that is not defined, I presume it is meant to apply to children from the age of five—from any of the measures proposed in this Bill. However, I think that the noble Lord himself acknowledged that the amendment does not particularly do that because it refers to Part 1 as a whole. Part 1 includes things like payments on account, social loan provisions and issues around DLA, which I do not think was his intention. We presume that his intention was to focus on the progression-to-work pathfinders dealt with in Clause 2, but he referred to Clause 1 also. I think, and on hearing other noble Lords who have participated, that there is some confusion in this matter.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope:Not just some.
4 pm
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Let me try to be very clear. Clause 1, which contains “work for your benefit” provisions, applies only if someone is subjected to the full JSA conditionality requirements: that they need to be available for work and that they are actively seeking work. Therefore, my noble friend Lady Turner said that we were progressively moving down the age of the youngest child to which that provision would apply until it becomes applicable to circumstances where the youngest child is aged seven. It would have no implications and no impact on situations where the youngest child is below the age of seven.
Clause 2 deals with the progression-to-work group—this point was made by my noble friend Lady Hollis—and helping lone parents and others prepare for work in relation to getting involved in work-related activity. That would apply to lone parents where the youngest child was aged under seven, but nothing in those provisions would require a parent to look for work or to take up work. We need to be clear on those two distinct provisions. Each needs to be piloted and we need to understand what we will learn from that. That is an important distinction to hold in our minds as we discuss the Bill.
Our policies for lone parents are about balancing the right to benefits to support the family with our wider responsibilities to help lone parents lift their
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC39
In support of this policy, we want to introduce a progression-to-work model which places a flexible, reasonable and personalised set of requirements on parents with younger children to help to prepare them for work. In his report, Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support, Professor Gregg suggested that the progression-to-work group should include parents, including lone parents, with a youngest child aged between one and six. However, we intend to test progression to work with parents with a youngest child aged between three and six.
We are starting with this age group because there is already a strong foundation of childcare provision available to it, as children aged three and four right across the UK have access to free part-time pre-school education, and children aged five and six receive free education of up to 30 hours a week during school term-time. We also think it is right to test an approach which balances giving lone parents on benefit time to participate full-time in early childhood activities while signalling that the long-term goal for most lone parents is to return to paid work.
In the future, we want to ensure that preparation for paid work is a natural progression for these parents, with it being part of an ongoing journey rather than a step up. We think this will help them to enter work as quickly as possible when it is appropriate for them. But I must stress at this point that we are testing this in the pathfinders to see whether this is the appropriate age group.
Under the progression-to-work model, parents with younger children will be expected to agree an action plan with their adviser. This will set out the parent’s individual goals, the activities they will undertake and the support they will access to undertake some form of activity that will help them in their eventual transition to work. In a sense, the role of the jobcentre adviser will change a little under this because hitherto the available programmes have generally been non-mandatory and people have been alerted as to what is on offer, whereas now there should be much more engagement with individuals to help them to understand the gaps that they have in their skills and what they might need to do to prepare for work. We will develop a much more engaged relationship.
When co-producing the action plan, an adviser will ensure that it will be tailored to the parent’s wishes and individual circumstances before it is finalised and agreed. This action plan will take into account their individual caring responsibilities when considering what
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC40
In most cases, the activities agreed as part of an action plan can be organised in such a way that they can be fitted around these hours. If that is not possible and paid childcare is needed to enable a parent to comply with any element of their work plan, that will be funded in full by Jobcentre Plus. That is vital if parents are taking part in activities that require childcare. We will also ensure that a number of safeguards will be in place where parents can refuse to take part in, or leave, the mandatory activity they have agreed without being penalised if their personal circumstances justify that. We would allow, for example, action plans to be adapted if there was bereavement, serious illness, domestic emergency or the breakdown of childcare arrangements.
I cannot stress enough that these pathfinders are not about forcing parents, including lone parents, into work before it is appropriate for them. These measures are designed to prepare these parents and get them ready so that work becomes a natural progression for parents with younger children. We hope that this will take them closer to the labour market so they will be able to more readily access the opportunities to lift their children out of poverty and access the full range of social, economic and community benefits that come with undertaking paid work. It would be wrong to place a specific age on the face of the Bill. When we test these measures in consultation with our stakeholders, we may decide to change the age of the youngest child if that is found to be appropriate and it is right that we should be able to do that without primary legislation.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollis, referred to the research that is available and what evidence exists for the effects of maternal employment on the neurological development of children. There is a growing body of evidence that points to the importance of early years for the development of the brain, and a child’s early experiences will determine whether their developing brain provides a strong or weak foundation for all future learning, behaviour and health. The early development of cognitive, social and physical abilities not only affects their school readiness, but has the potential to affect their long-term achievement, through their school lives and into adulthood. However, there is very little evidence of the specific impact of maternal employment on the neurological development of children.
There is some evidence on the effects of maternal employment on children's cognitive and behavioural outcomes, but that is largely inconclusive: there is little specific to the UK context. What evidence there is suggests that there are few negative effects of maternal employment once the child is aged over 18 months. The small negative effects of maternal employment appear to be greater for those whose mothers work full time rather than part time, not surprisingly. Overall, no significant difference can be identified between lone parents and mothers in couples, in terms of how their employment is related to a child’s cognitive development.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC41
Moreover, evidence suggests that the negative effects of early full-time maternal employment are concentrated in children who attended little or no formal childcare. The use of quality formal childcare seems to protect children from adverse effects. We have a strong body of evidence to show that good-quality early-years childcare for children aged two, three and four has a positive impact on child development, especially for disadvantaged children.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the right reverend Prelate referred to the attachment between the parent and the child. Working parents form strong bonds with children, and research shows that on the whole they spend more quality time with their children than those who do not work. Good-quality childcare plus good parental input results in the best outcomes for children.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the lack of childcare and, indeed, to the lack of transport in her location. Childcare is now more widely available than ever before, and we have made considerable investment to ensure that it is also more affordable for families on low or moderate incomes. We have further amendments that will have the chance to develop this. The large majority of lone parents will be able to find the childcare that they need to enable them to return to work. However, where suitable childcare is genuinely not available, this will be taken into consideration when determining whether there is good cause for any act or omission of a lone parent. The availability of transport and the costs of transport will similarly be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about the different ages that have been referred to in various bits of documentation that have been circulated. Just to be clear, for parents whose youngest child is under the age of one, there will be no conditionality. For parents whose youngest child is aged between three and six, the proposal to be piloted is a mandatory work-focused interview with an action plan and work-related activity. For those whose youngest child is between one and two, there is the usual existing mandatory work-focused interview and action plan.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on mothers under pressure and how these provisions relate to them. The point is taken, but the approach to work-related activity—the progression to work—provides ample scope for that to be taken into account. It is the job of the adviser to work out an action plan with the lone parent. The action plan is the format and the occasion when these issues can be reviewed and developed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, in particular referred to childcare. The Government have invested significantly in improving the affordability of childcare. The cost of childcare is a more significant issue for parents of pre-school children, but all children aged three and four are now entitled to free part-time pre-school of 12.5 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. Obviously that has a particular impact on reducing costs. Low-to-moderate-income families receive help with childcare costs from the tax credits system, and are entitled to help with 80 per cent of eligible costs of
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC42
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds asked whether this was relevant if work was not available. I return to the point that Clause 1 is about “work for your benefit”, and that Clause 2 is about work-related activity. Notwithstanding that—obviously these matters will be developed over the next few years—the pathfinders will not start until next year, when the economy will be in a better shape. Even if that were not the case we have learnt that, if we are inactive about our benefits system and do not help people to get ready and to progress towards work when we are in a recession, it is much more difficult to do so later on. All the evidence shows that the longer people are on benefits, particularly inactive ones, the more difficult it is for them to get back into work.
I hope that I have covered each of the points that have been raised in this debate. This is an important starting point. We simply wish to reiterate the distinction between what is provided for in Clauses 1 and 2. We need to bear that in mind in our debates on subsequent amendments. I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment. As we are in the Moses Room, I understand that he might not do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can my noble friend help us on a further point? Part of our difficulty in the Committee is our concerns that the progression-to-work category for those with a youngest child under seven may appear oppressive and difficult for the lone parent to manage and handle. From my experience, I do not believe that to be the case; and that is ultimately very much to be desired. Can my noble friend help the Committee by perhaps circulating in a letter over the next couple of days some examples of what such an action plan could realistically look like, based on a couple of lone parents—one of whom might ultimately have an interest in working in a shop, and someone else who might ultimately have an interest in clerical work—and what that activity would look like when a lone parent has a child under seven, so that we can be reassured that the provisions are appropriate, sensible, not oppressive and really will fit the lifestyle, stresses and problems that a lone parent faces?
4.15 pm
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, I should be very happy to do that. In fact, I asked for some case studies relating to each of the new clauses. They are too extensive to read out in our proceedings today, but I may circulate those examples to help noble Lords to get a flavour of what is involved. I hang on to the point. These are pathfinders, not programmes that will be fully introduced until we have tested them. The programmes are being developed in conjunction with stakeholders. There is flexibility in the proposals for people who, along their journey, find that the action plan they originally signed up to needs to change because of pressures and circumstances. That flexibility is available in the system.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Before the Minister finally sits down, can he assure us that in this time of scarcity of jobs there would not be a requirement for a
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC43
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I can give the noble Baroness an absolute assurance that the progression-to-work group does not require anyone to be directed to any particular job or work at all. This is about supporting and helping them to get closer to the labour market. It might be that training is needed or just engagement with a local children’s centre; it might be that along the way they should simply seek to stabilise their housing condition, to get them in a position where they are better able to take up an employment opportunity. It is not about directing people to work. It is different from the “work for your benefit” group, and the work experience attached to that. But I hope that that assurance will help the noble Baroness.
Lord Rowlands: Can my noble friend clarify a point? What sanctions will be attached to the progression-to-work groups?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: There will be sanctions for non-compliance, which would involve at some point withdrawal of an element of benefit, but hardship provisions exist in the system. I should also say that, as part of the pathfinders, we are seeking to test Professor Gregg’s proposals on conditionality and sanctions. That approach is much more involved in co-operation, letters, warning and engaging people first before there is withdrawal of financial support. I acknowledge that some people have concerns about sanctions, but we know that if the system is to an extent mandatory and people are required to do something, if no sanctions are attached, some will not. As long as those sanctions are applied sensitively and reflect an individual’s circumstances, it is right that we do that. However, we shall consider more detailed amendments on sanctions later.
Lord Rix: My question is somewhat naive, but exactly what provisions apply to a single mother with a disabled child?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: A number of provisions could apply. If the child is aged seven, by 2010 such a person could be fully within the jobseeker’s allowance regime and therefore required to actively—I seek some help from the Box. This note says, “Exemptive on carer’s allowances”, which probably prevents me having to retract something that I was going to say. I think that is in the JSA regime—sorry, it is in all the regimes. I was also going to say that—in so far as that exemption did not apply when judgments were made about what was reasonable for lone parents to do and the availability of childcare, for example—that would have to reflect the individual circumstances faced by that parent and child. If someone is on carer’s allowance, they will be exempt from these provisions.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC44
Lord Northbourne: When the Minister speaks of carers, that includes people caring for their own children?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, it does.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords in this Grand Committee who have spoken to this first amendment. Most of them were supportive in one form or another—the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas, Lady Turner and Lady Meacher, to an extent I suppose the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to say nothing of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.
I will start with what I might call the Yorkshire axis between the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate. I accept that it is extremely difficult to find jobs at the moment; indeed, I have tabled an amendment on the availability of local jobcentres to access those jobs that are available, which seems pretty deplorable, but we will get to that either later today or on Thursday. I thought at one moment that the right reverend Prelate was going to quote the Jesuits: “Give me a child till he is seven and he is mine for life”. Was that not a Jesuit premise? Perhaps that thought subliminally ran through many of your Lordships’ comments on the amendment. I must make it clear that, in the amendment, I was thinking purely and simply about lone parents. Some remarks led me to believe that your Lordships were casting the net rather more widely than I had intended.
The Minister told us that I was confused between Clauses 1 and 2, namely “work for your benefit” and progression to work. I got the impression from him that he was claiming that they were mutually exclusive. I do not think that they are; by definition, you start off being on benefit. If you are not on benefit, none of this applies.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: What I was trying to convey was that, if you look in particular at the age of the youngest child for which the various provisions operate, Clause 1 operates only for those subject to the full JSA conditionality, and that cannot operate where the lone parent has a child younger than seven. That obviously is not the case for Clause 2, where we look to have work-related activity requirements where the youngest child can be between the ages of three and six; that is what the pathfinder will say. They would be mutually exclusive. Subject to the exemptions that we have touched on, if you have a lone parent with the youngest child aged seven, they will be within what is the full JSA regime at the moment, and could be subject in due course to the “work for your benefit” provisions, but that programme is directed at people who have been out of the labour market for some time.
Lord Skelmersdale: That is extremely helpful and no doubt will inform our later discussions. I also understood the Minister to say that in Clause 2—the progression-to-work category—no direction applies at any time. I am not sure that that is right. The clause is littered with various forms of directions.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC45
Lord McKenzie of Luton: What I hoped I had said was that no one can be directed to work at a particular job or to job-seek under these provisions. This is work-related activity, progression to work and helping people to put themselves in a position where they can take advantage of work opportunities. Certainly there would be directions because that is what the clause is all about.
Lord Skelmersdale: I thought I had written it down fairly carefully but perhaps when I read Hansard tomorrow I shall understand that I was not careful enough.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we must not have a situation where a mother becomes a reluctant participant in the programme. As the programme is meant to lead to work—ideally full-time work—the likelihood of her remaining in that work is, within those circumstances, pretty limited.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, told us that the Children's Society tends to agree with the government approach but on a fairly even-handed level. In other words, I do not think, from what she said and from what I have read from the Children's Society, that it comes down firmly on one side or the other. I know she will correct me if I am wrong. She pointed out, as have various people who have written to me, and I suspect to us all, that there could well be added pressures on parents which verge—or more than verge—on the mental health view. I accept that. That would be the same whether there were a single parent or two parents, would it not?
To sum up, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who asked the devastating question, “What is work?”, to which I do not think the Minister replied.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I made reference to paid work, I think.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps the Minister would give some thought to redefining that. To suggest, even by implication, that looking after children and the household is not work seems to me to be very unfair.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I would hesitate to engage with parliamentary counsel to try to unpick the wording of this provision.
Lord Skelmersdale: Between them they could think about a carer’s allowance. I am sorry; that was naughty; I should not have said that. I am sure that we shall all read Hansard extremely carefully tomorrow. In the mean time, I am very grateful to the Minister, as usual, for the very thorough way in which he has explained this difficult matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |