| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The amendments seek to protect the time and quality of care that parents who seek work are able to provide for their children. The justification for that is not a surprise to any of us. This is not the first time that such matters have been debated in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere; nor will this be the definitive and final debate on the subject—not, at least, while we still have the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, it is worth looking at some of the costly results of neglecting the well-being of children. I have seen figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families relating to children who were excluded for a fixed period from school in 2006-07, as has just been mentioned. In total, there were 425,600 fixed-period exclusions, representing 5.7 per cent of the whole school population. Of those exclusions, a rather jaw-dropping 45,730 were children at primary school. I have seen the response from the Government to a Question asked in another place on truancy. Although it seems that precise figures are not recorded, it appears that persistent absences, where a pupil misses 20 per cent or more of schooling, which I am told is the best indicator of problem absence, ran at 3.6 per cent of the school population in 2007-08. In other words, a hard core of pupils are missing at least one day a week of school—quite probably more—and the overall figures for unauthorised absences are much higher, at more than 1.7 million pupils across England, if I am reading the figures correctly.
I do not wish to overload noble Lords with statistics for fear of sounding too prime ministerial, but I have one more set to complete the picture. In 2008, there were 15,819 persistent young offenders—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will confirm—who, between them, committed 28,834 offences; and those are just the ones whom we know about. I raise these numbers to illustrate, in so far as broad lists of statistics can be illustrative, the dangers of neglecting our youth. One thinks of children carrying knives, which is such a current problem in our inner cities. That surely is caused by neglect of some sort.
I believe, probably like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, that these problems have their infancy in children at a very young age, under the age of seven. I do not think for a moment that the noble Lord’s amendments, if adopted, would provide a sudden and complete panacea to these ills, but their inclusion in the Bill, or something very like them, would indicate that we are prepared to take a step in the right direction.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: This has been an exceptionally good debate and I thank everyone who has participated for the manner in which they have done so. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for the way in which he introduced his amendments. I think that he acknowledged the Government’s commitment to tackling and improving the well-being of children generally, and he made specific reference to Every Child Matters.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC169
Before I move on to the amendments, I stress that, as noble Lords know, the Government have taken the bold step of committing to eradicate child poverty by 2020, and these changes are part of the strategy to achieve that goal. Moving families from worklessness and into work is the best route out of poverty and the disastrous effects that it can have on children’s well-being. Living in a household where no adult is working puts a child at a 61 per cent risk of poverty, with all the lifelong disadvantages that that often brings. Therefore, by requiring parents to take up and engage with “work for your benefit”, we will ensure that as many people as possible are able to transform their lives, improve their well-being and increase their families’ incomes.
I turn first to Amendment 22A. When requiring parents to undertake work experience, any decisions concerning their treatment or the activities that they are to undertake will be made with due consideration for the well-being, welfare and education of any child whose life may be affected by them. That must be the case.
In “work for your benefit” pilots, providers and advisers must take into account all the jobseeker’s barriers to work, not just those specified in the amendment. This will be outlined in the contract specification. In addition, before any jobseeker is referred to the “work for your benefit” programme, their case will be reviewed to ensure that it is suitable for them. Any caring responsibilities will be taken into account and any restrictions that parents have placed on their job search to take account of the caring and well-being of their children will be brought forward into “work for your benefit”. For example, if a parent has restricted their job search to part-time work on the grounds that they need to look after their children, we would expect them to be available only for the same hours under “work for your benefit”.
On Amendment 22B, I think we are all agreed that protecting the well-being of children is of fundamental importance in all that a Government do. It underpins the principle of this legislation. Clause 1 is not designed to compel parents to do work experience which is not appropriate for them or their families. Instead, we want to ensure that parents and other unemployed people are given the help and support they need to prepare for and, when appropriate, enter work.
In general, we believe that work-related activity, including the “work for your benefit” scheme, will have a beneficial impact on individual claimants and their children. Indeed, evidence shows that the benefits to children of their parents working are more far-reaching than increased income alone. Children have reported the benefits of parental employment, and parents making the move into paid work have observed positive psychological benefits in their children. For example, a study of newly working households found reduced stigma among children as a result of their parents leaving the benefits system and consequently fitting in more with their peers, and having a less stressful home life due to fewer arguments about money. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred in particular to the importance of having stress-free time with parents.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC170
In-depth interviews with older children of working lone parents showed that they can be a good role model for their children. The children felt that their lives had improved since their mothers started work, and they were protective and supportive of their mother participating in the labour market. Increased income also meant increased access to transport, and this opened up access to a wider range of beneficial social networks and opportunities. For these children, the increased status of having a mother in paid work also provided a welcome boost to their self-esteem. Only parents who are subject to full JSA conditionality will be asked to participate in “work for your benefit”, so this will apply only to those lone parents whose youngest child is seven or older, not those with younger children who are transferred to JSA when income support is abolished. In addition, before referring anyone to the “work for your benefit” programme, an adviser will review with the jobseeker their circumstances and barriers to work to ensure that the programme is appropriate for them. This will act as a safeguard to ensure that nobody is inappropriately required to take part in the programme.
We will also incorporate safeguards to ensure that the work experience offered is suitable and relevant to the individual. For example, the restrictions specified in a parent’s jobseeker's agreement relating to the days and hours they may restrict their availability for work will be carried forward into “work for your benefit”. As I said earlier, this will mean that if a parent has agreed that they will look only for part-time work, then they will be required to undertake only part-time work experience. “Work for your benefit” providers will also have a responsibility to ensure that adequate childcare is in place to enable parents to participate fully in the programme.
I reassure noble Lords that, when making decisions about the type of work-related activity or work experience to be undertaken, Jobcentre Plus will always give paramount consideration to the well-being of any child who may be affected by them. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked about that in particular. But it remains the case that the surest and most sustainable way to address child poverty is to support more parents into paid work; work that pays and that enables parents to manage the careful balance between employment and family life.
5.45 pm
Amendment 22C would also affect lone parents with older children who have existing obligations to look for work. Under the Bill, parents’ caring responsibilities will be taken into account at the very beginning of a claim for jobseeker’s allowance when the jobseeker’s agreement is set up. It sets out the type and level of work and, by extension, work experience they are required to undertake. It is up to the parent, working with Jobcentre Plus advisers, to decide the amount and the pattern of activity they are available for after considering any caring responsibilities and the availability of childcare. Amendment 22C would prevent parents having the flexibility to tailor their work experience, which in turn could restrict their future job search to their family circumstances if they so chose, and while I acknowledge concerns about
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC171
Amendment 22D specifically mentions a jobseeker who is the parent of a child under the age of 16. As I have already mentioned, parents with older children who are claiming jobseeker’s allowance are required to be available for work for as many hours as their caring responsibilities permit, and can limit this to 16 hours. Jobcentre Plus staff are trained in developing and understanding a claimant’s circumstances and ensuring that jobseekers’ agreements and action plans are appropriate. When making agreements with a parent, advisers will ensure that the claimant’s wishes and family circumstances are considered. They will agree with the parent the appropriateness of activities to ensure that they do not impact adversely on the welfare, well-being or education of their child. This will be detailed in guidance.
As noble Lords will be aware, if there is a failure to carry out the agreement or an activity outlined in the plan, it could lead to further action and sanctions. To consider the imposition of a sanction, an adviser will refer the evidence to an expert decision-maker who will make a decision based on the reasonableness of the activity agreed between the adviser and the parent. The evidence may relate to the welfare or education of any child involved and could include, for example, attendance at school, sickness and the availability of appropriate childcare. Jobcentre Plus advisers and decision-makers are essential to the successful delivery of these programmes. Advisers and decision-makers are already highly skilled and currently deal with complex circumstances in their discussions with parents. We will build on this by enhancing the comprehensive training package that they already undertake. Jobcentre Plus advisers and decision-makers will be suitably trained so that they can judge, in discussion with the parent, the effect which advice or directions may have on the welfare, education or care of the children involved, and will ensure that they are able to deliver the more personalised and family-focused approach we require. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, stressed the issue of proper training for our staff. It is essential and runs through the provisions of this Bill and much else. It is especially relevant when dealing with individuals and their families or those with mental health conditions.
Before implementation, staff will also receive appropriate training to ensure that safeguards are in place. We will also ensure that “work for your benefit” providers must have the knowledge and skills to take into account the range of customer circumstances, not just those specified in this agreement. This will be outlined in the contract specification.
A number of particular issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about home educators. We will consider an amendment to this effect in due course, but I should say that while recognising that parents can choose to home educate their children, the funding is not provided by Government to do so. Parents in this situation do not receive their benefit
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC172
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised the issue of where a jobseeker is in prison and has children under the age of 16. If I may, I will reflect a little more and get some advice so that I can give him a considered reply rather than a glib response. Again, it is a very important issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in support of the amendments, referred to harm being inflicted on children. Of course I do not believe that there is anything in what we are proposing that should or could lead to harm being inflicted on children. That is dependent on making sure that Jobcentre Plus providers are engaged, properly trained and alert to all the issues that have properly raised this afternoon in relation to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He specifically referred to issues arising in infancy—children under the age of seven. Nothing in the provisions would require parents of children under the age of seven to have to take up or seek employment.
Lord Skelmersdale: We are talking about Clause 1, not Clause 2.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, but Clause 1 applies to those who are subject to the full conditionality of the JSA regime, which does not apply to lone parents until the youngest child reaches the age of seven—in fact, that does not currently apply and will not apply until next year. As the noble Lord will know, we progressively reduce the age of the youngest child at which income support payments move into the JSA system.
Based on the assurances that I have given and the explanations that I have made, I would hope—
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I am grateful to the Minister—I am aware of the passage of time. The Minister would help me enormously if he could consider using the word “well-being” rather than “welfare”. I know that the regulations are common and go across a lot of benefits, but there is a significant psychological difference between the well-being of a child, which has a psychological content and is more broadly based, and welfare, which is just about whether it is being fed, not starving. The guidance to the professionals taking those decisions should refer specifically to the well-being, not the welfare of the child.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I would need to review the guidance to see quite what terminology is used in all circumstances, but I am happy to do that.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC173
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to those who joined the debate for the support that they gave me and to the Minister for his very full reply. Unfortunately—perhaps inevitably—his brief anticipated what I was going to say, and I would like to make two points clear. Under no circumstances did I or would I say that it is bad for a parent to go out to work and under no circumstances would I say that it is necessarily bad for a child to go into childcare. In both cases, it depends on the balance with family life. That is what I tried to say in my introduction. My amendments are not an attempt to make any specific recommendation, they simply throw open the idea that one of the criteria in judging any issue should be the well-being of the child.
My other point is a matter of correction. In Amendment 22C, I did not state that a parent had to take one weekend, I stated that regulations pursuant to Sections 17A and 17B,
- “shall be so drafted as to ensure that no jobseeker’s agreement, direction or planned for work or work related activities proposed
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC174
In other words, he can choose whether to have that day.
Time is running out. I should like to have the opportunity to read carefully what the Minister said but, at this moment, I am much encouraged by what he has said. It seems to me to make perfectly clear that the Government could not possibly have any objection to including my first amendment in the Bill, which is where I want to get it. If I may take the opportunity to visit the Minister between now and the next stage, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendments 22B to 23 not moved.
Baroness Crawley: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.30 pm on Monday.
Committee adjourned at 5.55 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |