| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Noble Lords asked me a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about the training of childminders and their ability. I understand that we have not cut back on the training for childminders. The number of childminders has dropped; the number of places provided by childminders has increased.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC366
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke about statistics. I am not sure whether I answered his question. The statistics that we have at the moment say that 20,000 children are in this position, but we believe the number is far greater. One point of the Badman report is to have far better monitoring of the whole situation, which I am sure means support for home educators as well as being important for the well-being and safety of children and the duty of local authorities to ensure that that duty of care is carried out. There must be better monitoring, better support and better regular visits.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the reasonableness of what is required of home educators. A decision-maker would take into account the fact that there is a school-age child in the house; home education as such may not be relevant but for the availability of childcare it would be relevant. The state recognises that the childcare responsibility of home carers is a relevant issue on which to engage with home carers. However, it does not recognise that the education responsibility of home carers is one that it should discuss with home educators, because that is a voluntary activity on the part of parents.
I hope that I have answered the questions and urge the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw his amendment.
5 pm
Lord Lucas: Withdrawing an amendment is no problem in Grand Committee because it happens to the best of us, so there is no opportunity for vanity. It has been an education to me, and one from which I will profit, to listen to all noble Lords on this occasion. I can see that there is a consensus, at least at this end of the Table, on the objectives of jobseeker’s allowance, what it is seeking to achieve and how it goes about it. As a stranger in this territory, I shall seek to work within that consensus.
The noble Baroness said that home educators should go to their fortnightly interviews. I will research more whether that is a good or bad thing. I am not entirely sure whether it is totally constructive, given that other parents in similar situations but tied into the state are very much the same position—such as if their child has been excluded from school, has not been allocated a school or has a school attendance order but does not have to attend every couple of weeks. I must try to understand why the Government make that concession in those circumstances and are never prepared to consider it for home educators.
Baroness Crawley: I would be delighted if we came back to this, but it is because those excluded children are within the state system and the home-educated children cannot be in the same category because home education is a choice.
Lord Lucas: None the less, the parents and their children are very much in the same situation. Anyway, I admit my ignorance in this area and will try to educate myself between now and Report. However, I would like more comfort—if not now then later—on what their experience of returning every couple of weeks is like. I would like to know that it was the Government’s policy that school is not an acceptable
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC367
I would also like to try to understand why jobcentres are not more supportive of home-working and home businesses than they are. Why do they not, for instance, routinely refer people to the Prince’s Trust if they show an interest in starting a business from home? Why do they not have a full and proper register of home-working opportunities? Again, this is none of my personal experience but just what has been related to me by home educators. I would like to try to understand these issues between now and Report. I would be most grateful for anything that the noble Baroness can do now or, indeed, later.
Baroness Crawley: Perhaps the noble Lord and I might meet between now and Report to discuss these things. We will certainly write on the issue that he raised about school as childcare and his point about the reported conversation with someone in this position being told that it was.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful. An hour spent in the noble Baroness’s company would be a joy in many respects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 3 : Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants
74A: Clause 3, page 10, line 17, at end insert—
“(8) Regulations made under subsection (4)(c) shall include any person with dependant children who has claimed benefit in the previous three months where he has left and remains absent from the former dwelling occupied as the home through fear of violence in that dwelling or by a former member of his family.”
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Amendment 74A seeks to include those who have left home due to domestic violence in the definition of those who fall into the Clause 3 category of those entitled to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment. The exclusion from the need to seek employment would last for three months. The reason why I am moving this amendment and not the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, is that she thought that she might be detained in court when this amendment came up. Happily, she has managed to be here—but that is why I am taking the liberty of moving this amendment from these Benches. The amendment uses the same definition of domestic violence as that used in the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, which allows a claimant
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC368
In 2008, research conducted by Gingerbread and Family Action examined the financial impact of domestic violence on women and found that it had a profound effect on women's ability to participate in employment, both while they were in a violent relationship and after they had left. Not only did it severely dent their confidence, but the very prospect of employment raised safety issues around their former partners knowing their whereabouts. Women fleeing domestic violence have also to be rehoused and resettled, often in temporary accommodation or refuges, which leads to significant disruption of their lives.
Reading the Report and Third Reading stages of the Bill in another place, the then Secretary of State, Mr. James Purnell, whom I seem to keep quoting, assured the Opposition spokesman that there would be three months' grace during which a woman who is housed in a refuge following domestic violence will not be required to work in order to qualify for JSA. How will that be taken forward? Will the Minister put down his own amendment? Will this be spelt out in regulations or simply be in guidance? I understand that at present Jobcentre Plus has the discretion to grant up to two months’ respite for women in a situation of domestic emergency to look for work. There is also a suggestion that that could be extended to three months. However, we are looking for clarity and commitment for women who are specifically fleeing domestic violence. Why should they rely on the discretion of a decision-making Jobcentre Plus in such an important area of policy? In Grand Committee, we have discovered that decision-makers do not always get these things right. Sometimes, they may even say that black is white.
When the Opposition spokesman asked about the three months’ grace, the former Secretary of State said that he could definitely give that assurance, which sounds to me like a firm promise of action. We want statutory protection for these women. I hope that however this promise is taken forward, it will extend to women who are not just in refuges following domestic violence but who might be elsewhere—perhaps with a family member or friends. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for taking the lead on this amendment on my behalf. I am in the middle of a difficult terrorist trial and it was looking unlikely that I would be here today. I am glad that I was able to make it and can add my words to those of the noble Baroness who has argued the case beautifully. There is little that I can add.
Over the years, I have been deeply involved with cases of domestic violence. When I was a much younger lawyer, it was a regular part of my practice. Now, at the much more serious end of crime, it is usually when there is a fatality that I am involved and that is deeply traumatic. The trauma of domestic violence cannot be underestimated. In the work that I now do with many of the organisations represented here today on the listening benches, we who are involved in any capacity with domestic violence know that the toll it takes is
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC369
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned the respite of three months. We should be thinking of something more considerable. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some solace on this and say that we might be talking about more than three months. I shall explain why. With regard to the exercise of discretion by those in the offices who will deal with people coming for jobseeker’s allowance, there is still considerable ignorance about domestic violence. People still think that once a partner has left or a woman has left a situation of domestic violence, that is the end of things. The toll of long periods of domestic violence is so great that it often takes a very long time for people to feel able properly to engage again with the world. The idea of being able to find employment and hold down a job is truly daunting. It will take a lot of support and help for women to reach that point, often because their self-esteem has been totally undermined.
I want to emphasise the impact of domestic violence on children. It took many years for the judges before whom we would argue these cases to understand that when a woman was being battered it was abuse of the children too. The children became traumatised, suffered emotionally and were often damaged by witnessing the violence in their home. Those children are often very needy and need their parent in the months afterwards. It feels like a bereavement, and there are often complicated emotions because the children often also have great affection and love for the abusive parent. Seeing their parents separating is often deeply traumatic for the children, and the mother is especially needed in the months that follow. Therefore, I urge the Committee to be sensitive about pressing the woman into work during that time.
I return to the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. The easy response would be to say that there will be discretion for those interviewing these women—it is largely women—but that does not give enough solace to those of us who know about these experiences. Too many people do not understand the impact of domestic violence, particularly long-term domestic violence. We are hoping that the Minister will be able to give us comfort by saying that the Government will table an amendment to provide the protections for women that we want to see in the Bill. If welfare is about anything, it is about protecting the most vulnerable. Domestic violence is one of those areas. We know the social cost of domestic violence. In the longer term, we are talking about the underperformance of children in education and the higher incidence of mental illness as children become older when they have been brought up in violent homes. We know the cost in terms of anti-social behaviour. Children often act out because they have been brought up in abusive environments. If we can deal with this sensitively early on by providing support to a mother going through this experience, it would be important for society as a whole.
I hope that the Minister will see this in the context of the wider work that has been done by government on domestic violence. The Government have a good
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC370
This means that in a Bill as important as this we have to make sure that we are alert to the ways in which domestic violence has a long-term impact on those who are on the receiving end. To urge them too early into work will not be beneficial to any of those involved or to society as a whole. That is why this is such an important issue for those who are creating this legislation.
5.15 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: I support much of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have just said. I expect that domestic violence will be debated at some length later on in the Bill, when we come to Schedule 6, which will, I am pleased to say, be placed in the safe hands of my noble friend Lord Taylor.
However, on this rather more specific issue of how the rules on claiming jobseeker’s allowance relate to those who suffer from domestic violence, I believe that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. The noble Baroness’s amendment refers to a person who has left the family home through fear of violence. Although I admire her efforts to be determinedly politically correct—the amendment after all refers to a male—the sad truth is that the people whom we really have in mind are more likely to be women and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, their trauma.
Women who have children over seven who leave a violent relationship would previously have been entitled to income support. However, due to changes in regulations, which we have been talking about off and on for far too long, those women will now be asked to claim jobseeker's allowance and be subject to the full conditions that are incorporated in the jobseeker's allowance regime—whether it is the full regime or the modified regime does not really matter.
We are trying to avoid placing demands on frightened and vulnerable women which would be too onerous, given their circumstances, for them to meet. For those women who have to flee their homes to escape violence, with children in tow, the income support that they receive, until they are migrated off it, is essential for them to survive. For those who manage to find refuge in a shelter, the benefits that they receive will be vital to help pay for that and to meet their other needs.
I believe that it is in recognition of these problems that the noble Baronesses have proposed the amendment. For that reason, we support the principle that women—or, indeed, men, as the amendment allows—should have a grace period. Indeed, my great party proposed last year a grace period of three months, during which women who are in refuges, having had to flee their homes to escape domestic violence, would not be required to seek work in order to qualify for JSA. My party did not go as far as to say that they should not be in the progression-to-work group, because that was not in the process of being debated.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that such a measure is fair, as there is little to be gained from foisting demands on traumatised women who need a
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC371
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the fact that this matter was raised, perhaps too briefly, in another place, as consideration of the Bill there was drawing to a close. I say “too briefly”, because the Minister’s most recent temporary boss pronounced on this issue—I would have thought, unlike perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—somewhat uncertainly. Therefore, I look to the Minister to be more explicit. The quotation that I would like to comment on is one from Mr Purnell on 17 March, at col. 871 of Hansard, when he said that he believed it to be the case that mothers in this category were already protected. The former Secretary of State believed it to be the case, but will the Minister confirm that it is so and will remain so? If he can, I expect that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw the amendment, knowing that in the precise words that she has chosen it is not needed. Again, however, I shall have to think carefully about the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I strongly support this amendment and declare an interest, going back many years now, when I was involved as a local authority housing chair in setting up both a refuge for battered women and some of the halfway houses to which they were able to move. Obviously, circumstances changed and differed among the women who suffered domestic violence, but most who came to the refuge had to move on every few weeks as an aggressive, abusive and violent man sought to find them. They would try to track down their children at school, follow them back from school and then break the windows of the refuge. Above and beyond all the physical assaults that lone parent had had, she had to deal with the fact that she and her children were constantly moving home and school; sometimes she would even move out of the local authority area into an adjacent local authority area for her own safety. Apart from all the trauma and stress of the impossible situation in which that put the lone parent, it was impossible for the DWP and any prospective employer to have a working relationship with somebody who was essentially on the move for her own physical safety. That will not be true of all of them, but it was true of many of the women that I worked with those years back.
For all sorts of reasons, I hope that my noble friend can agree the amendment today and we can bank it and regard this as a step forward. There is no way that such a woman in such a situation will be job-ready or remain focused on work when she is thinking about her physical safety and her child’s emotional safety. I hope that my noble friend will simply say that it is a
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC372
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for moving this important amendment. I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Kennedy was able to make our proceedings, despite the pressing issues that she has to deal with. I acknowledge my noble friend’s long-standing expertise and commitment in this area and the important issue that she raises about domestic violence having an impact on children in particular. There was also the point raised by my noble friend Lady Hollis about the transitory nature of housing arrangements for women and children in these circumstances. To the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I can say that, while we are looking at regulations under the JSA regime, they could and should and will be imported into the progression to work group as well.
Clause 3 gives power to prescribe in regulations persons who can receive income-based jobseeker’s allowance without having to meet the usual job-seeking conditions. Our objective is to modify the conditions for jobseeker’s allowance so that it is suitable for people who currently receive income support, such as lone parents with a youngest child under the age of 7. This amendment would place in the Bill a specific category of people who would be able to receive jobseeker’s allowance but who, for a period of three months, would not be required to seek work. That easement would apply to jobseekers with dependent children who have left their previous home through fear of violence. For the most part, it would be of benefit to lone parents with children aged seven or older who have been subject to domestic violence.
As we have discussed previously in this Committee, lone parents with older children no longer have automatic entitlement to income support. If they are otherwise work-ready, they can access support through jobseeker’s allowance only; in doing so, they are required to comply with the full labour market conditions that attach to that benefit.
However, when putting these provisions in place, we recognise that there will be times when it would be unreasonable to expect the full conditions of jobseeker’s allowance to apply; for example, in cases of recent bereavement or relationship break-up where the pressure to comply with full conditionality could place further stress and anxiety on an individual or their children. I hope that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that these provisions also apply in instances of domestic violence.
We have amended the jobseeker’s allowance regulations to enable advisers to use their discretion in cases where there is some domestic emergency. Parents in these circumstances, including lone parents, will be treated sympathetically and advisers will be able to waive the requirement to be available for employment for a period of up to eight weeks on any one occasion in any period of 12 months. That is in addition to the three further periods of one week each that may be allowed under the current rules for the same circumstances. These additional weeks can run consecutively.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC373
While I understand the very real concerns behind these amendments, I believe the approach we are already taking is the sensible one that enables those facing difficult and stressful times to be supported. We already have provisions in place that enable a period of respite which will give parents subject to violence an opportunity to start to rebuild their lives and self-confidence while not having to worry about attending their jobcentre or looking for work. Prior to the abolition of income support we also want to mirror these provisions within regulations for the progression-to-work group.
The Countess of Mar: I am going back to training. The Minister has said that jobcentre staff will use their discretion in these cases. They will have to be extremely sensitive to understand what women go through when they are badly treated by their husbands or partners. It is not in the experience of most people to understand this. As well as the training that we are told advisers will receive for people with fluctuating illnesses, learning difficulties and mental problems, what sort of training will be given? How long will it take? Will the advisers meet some people who have already gone through these traumas themselves in order to ascertain how difficult it is for the people who the advisers will deal with?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I should also like to pick up on that and the Minister can answer us both at the same time. The reason why training to help deal with discretion is being raised is because we know that although the police around the country have been urged to take domestic violence seriously, there are huge variations in response to this and huge variations, despite training, in how the police deal with domestic violence. Unfortunate failures have led to terrible events. It is very hard for those who have never themselves had any close dealings with domestic violence to understand its impact. Are the Government confident that even training such people will deal with that? In the courts, judges, lawyers and the police have great difficulty. We still struggle to have this understood by all those players in this area. The idea that people in jobcentres up and down the country will understand well enough to exercise discretion in a favourable way is something about which we have profound concerns. Perhaps the Minister has an answer to that.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |