| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may also throw in a question for my noble friend. When contact is made with a woman and, as a result of the situation she is exposed to, she asks for this discretion, how often does he expect the personal adviser to grant it? If it is to be granted informally, make it a right. That makes it simple. As a former local authority leader, he will understand the situation very well in his own borough. If he thinks that, as a result, almost every woman exposed to domestic violence would have the sympathetic response from the personal adviser that we would all like to see so that they would not be brought within the regime for three months or more,
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC374
5.30 pm
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I acknowledge that the training and understanding of advisers is key in this issue, as in so much of what we have debated so far during the passage of the Bill. In relation to the existing JSA regime and the progression-to-work model, we believe it will be necessary further to develop a workforce strategy to think through the implications of the adviser role. That work will also enable us to develop comprehensive additional training material for Jobcentre Plus advisers to enhance the knowledge and skills necessary to deliver this more personalised approach. It is inevitable that there will be differences of approach and emphasis, and there will not necessarily be uniform understanding. We need to continue to work at that to broaden the understanding and sensitise our advisers to these situations so they deliver the flexibility that is in the system at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the previous Secretary of State’s reference to this matter and assurance that three months’ grace would be available. The current formulation is eight weeks plus three one weeks, so one thing I will take away from this is the need for the regulations to recognise that three months are available. Under the regulations that is technically not quite there.
There is, as ever on these issues, a debate around whether we should allow discretion within the system or how much we should put in the Bill. The amendment would ensure that all those who left their previous home due to violence would be exempted, whereas the current provision requires some degree of judgment by advisers. However, advisers’ decisions are subject to the normal safeguards that apply within the system; that is, there is a separate decision-making function that ensures that the facts are looked at objectively and that decisions are reasonable in the circumstances and there is a right to appeal to an independent tribunal. There is that protection in the system. To summarise, we have to make clear that we are looking at three months, not eight weeks plus one week plus one week plus one week. We have to make sure that our advisers are trained and sensitised to these important issues. Where we might part company is on the need to put things in primary legislation, but I hope we have a common objective in dealing with this.
On issues around training, I would be happy to engage with my noble friend Lady Kennedy to run through what is currently involved in those training exercises and, if we may, draw on her particular expertise in seeking to address them. I hope that that has shown our support for the issues that have been pressed here. The key issue that we are apart on is the necessity of putting the provisions in primary legislation, which we do not think necessary. However, we need to make sure that the regulations and the system support the three-month requirement.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC375
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for her powerful speech. The Minister has moved an inch, but no further. I am worried that the phrase “domestic emergency”, under which Jobcentre Plus advisers would have to look at this issue, could cover a burst water main or something like that. It does not quite reflect the real trauma which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, talked about of the impact on family life, the disruption to children’s lives, perhaps having to move to a refuge or to safe houses, with all the knock-on effects of later anti-social behaviour. This is in a completely different league from other kinds of domestic emergencies.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. I saw the use of the terminology “domestic emergency” as potentially broader than the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which talks about having to flee the home. From what we have heard today, in most instances it is probably a woman with her children who has to flee the home. I can imagine that there may be some instances when someone is barred from the home, but that would not necessarily be a requirement. We are dealing here not only with the fact of domestic violence but also with the fear of it.
Again, I am happy to take this away and look at the regulations to ensure that it is absolutely clear that they cover the situations on which we are focusing. The regulations say that if there is a domestic emergency then there shall be an exemption. The discretion is over the period of exemption. Perhaps I did not make that sufficiently clear earlier on.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I am grateful to the Minister for that further elucidation. We shall have to study carefully what he said to see whether we should return to this matter. Three months is the absolute minimum and we now discover that it is not quite three months at the moment. We shall reflect on what the Minister has said. The fact that we have this amendment means that in various parts of the country the guidance has not been satisfactory; the discretion of Jobcentre Plus advisers has not been satisfactory, otherwise it would not have been brought to our attention. We will both study what noble Lords have said in this debate, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Crawley: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to take a break.
5.38 pm
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC376
5.52 pm
75: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Jobseeker’s allowance sanction regime where suitable childcare is not available
(1) The Jobseekers Act 1995 (c. 18) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 20 (exemptions from section 19), after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) Nothing in section 19, or in regulations under that section, shall be taken to prevent payment of a jobseeker’s allowance unless the Secretary of State has shown that lack of suitable childcare for children for whom the claimant is responsible was not the reason that the claimant falls within subsection (5) or (6) of section 19.
(1B) In deciding what is suitable childcare for a particular child or children the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable views of the claimant as to what childcare would be suitable in their child or children’s case.”.”
Baroness Meacher: This is a probing amendment. It concerns childcare for older children of parents who claim jobseeker’s allowance. Your Lordships will be well aware that we debated similar issues during the first day in Committee, but principally with respect to employment support allowance and the treatment of childcare for younger children. I do not want to rehearse the same issues here again, but ask for your Lordships’ patience while I explore a few points concerning JSA and older children where the Government’s position remains a little unclear.
On younger children, on the first day in Committee the Minister gave a good assurance that the parent would be responsible for decisions as to whether a particular childcare facility was appropriate for her child. On older children, in the context of decision-making on a parent’s participation in the flexible New Deal, the impression from the Government is very different. The former Secretary of State told the Work and Pensions Committee:
“In the end it will be the personal adviser's decision with the possibility of appeal because if we did it the other way round that would clearly have the potential to drive the cart and horses through the conditionality regime”.
“The cart and horses” is quite sweet, really.
The Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Committee report on the commissioning strategy for the flexible New Deal said:
“Advisers will be required to consider the availability and suitability of childcare when they consider whether a parent's child care responsibilities made it unreasonable for them to stay in employment, to take up paid employment, or to carry out a jobseeker's direction”.
This implies that personal advisers, who are unlikely to have any professional knowledge of and expertise in the childcare requirements of children, will be making decisions that will have a major impact upon a child’s development. I think that that quote can be interpreted in more than one way, so I am not saying that it is categorical.
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the following points. First, will the right of the parent to decide whether a particular childcare facility is suitable
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC377
Lord Northbourne: The noble Baroness raises an important point. We have so far talked about childcare largely as it relates to the under-sevens and the early years, which we must all recognise is a crucial period in the child’s life. But we must surely ask what we mean by “childcare”. It is simply unrealistic to talk about it just in the context of somewhere for the child to go and watch the television day in, day out eating noodles out of a pot. It is also unrealistic to expect teenagers to go where they are told to go; they have got to go where they want to go; there have got to be activities for them. Anyone who has worked in this area must be perfectly conscious that most of the youth clubs have closed and most of the playing fields have been sold off, and that extended schools are simply not a reality, yet, in terms of providing facilities for children of that age.
It is of the utmost importance that we take the opportunity of introducing a suitable amendment—the drafting of the amendment is fascinating: it is a quadruple negative—to suggest that parents have this right. After all, when children get to even nine, 10 or 11 years old, if they have a latch-key, they start looking on their computer or on the television for all the sorts of rubbish—not only rubbish but the positively evil material—that is available to them. They are then on the streets; they do not have anybody to guide them; they do not have anything to do; they form gangs and start to get drunk; and so we have domestic violence and many of the problems that we have with our young people today. What are we going to do about that? What are we going to do about parents who work perhaps at weekends or in the holidays who are not in a position to give guidance and some measure of supervision to their child?
Lord Skelmersdale: The new clause would create a new exemption from the application of Section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995. It would raise the absence of childcare facilities as a good cause for not fulfilling the obligations of the jobseeker’s agreement. I know from our earlier debate on childcare that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is concerned about the problems posed to parents of young children. In a way, the noble Lord is quite right: the problems of older children are arguably even more likely to be serious than those of
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC378
6 pm
Your Lordships may have decided, perhaps rightly, that I am fixated—to use my word to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—about the super-affirmative regulation that she proposed what seems weeks ago; perhaps it was, I am not entirely sure. However, I was interested to hear what the Minister said in response to that, as it is clear that childcare will be a stumbling block unless adequate provision is put in place. I hold to the view that this must be worked out in advance by a participant in a scheme and the adviser, and the scheme should be constructed accordingly to take account of school hours, available childcare, visiting rights if applicable, and so on.
When we were discussing the changes in the regulations in November 2008, I made the point that no one wanted to see children running wild, joining gangs and so on. Equally, no one wants to see them watching rubbish television for hours on end or, even worse, sitting in front of a computer—arguably for even longer. There is an awful lot of damaging material available on computers unless the parents sensibly block it—assuming that they know how, which is by no means always the case.
Having said this, I am not sure that I can support the noble Baroness’s amendment. It is unusual in that it places an almost insurmountable standard of proof on the Secretary of State. As well as being—what was the noble Lord’s expression?—a quadruple negative, the amendment means that if a person fails to take part in their scheme, they would not, as currently envisaged in the Bill, have to show that they had good cause for doing so. They would simply be able to sit back and leave the Secretary of State to prove that lack of suitable childcare was not the cause. It is difficult to prove a negative. I fear that the noble Baroness would risk rendering a scheme potentially unworkable. It is much more straightforward for the parents to point to a lack of childcare as their good cause. Reversing the burden of proof like this risks tying logic in knots.
I accept that this is a useful peg on which to hang a detailed discussion on childcare provision if, indeed, another lengthy one is still required. However, I remain of the view that this is, when put in practice, an action plan issue.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: We on this side of the Committee would be interested to know how the Minister replies on childcare for older children. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the age at which a child must have somebody looking after them. There is one perception, but I am not sure that 14 is a relevant age in law. It would be interesting to know what the reply is on that. This was reflected in the evidence-taking session in the other place. Someone
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC379
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has tabled this amendment but I hope, once again, to be able to reassure her that it is unnecessary. Section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 allows for the denial of jobseeker’s allowance in specified circumstances. Broadly, these are that a person has, without good cause or just cause, failed to carry out a jobseeker’s direction; failed to take up a place on a training scheme or employment programme; lost his job through misconduct; left his job voluntarily; or refused a reasonable opportunity of employment.
Section 19(8) enables regulations to prescribe the matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person has good or just cause for any act or omission with respect to these requirements. Regulations made under that provision ensure that the availability of suitable childcare forms part of the consideration.
Regulation 72 of the jobseekers regulations 1996 relates to decisions under Sections 19(5)(a) and 19(6)(c) of the Jobseekers Act. This regulation states that account must be taken of any caring responsibilities which would, or did, make it unreasonable for the person to undertake a particular employment or carry out the jobseeker’s direction. The regulation also requires that regard must be had to whether childcare is reasonably available and, where it is, whether it is unsuitable due to the parent’s particular needs or those of the child. Regulations 73 and 73A make similar provision in relation to good cause for failure to participate in training schemes or employment programmes and in respect of just cause in cases of voluntary unemployment.
The Government are cognisant of the fact that parental employment is likely to be predicated on the availability of suitable childcare. That is why we have invested heavily in our childcare strategies, and it is why we have already put regulations in place to ensure that this is a factor taken into account in deciding whether or not to deny benefit to jobseekers.
I should make it clear, as I hoped I had in our earlier deliberations, that it is for parents to decide which childcare provision is suitable for their children. That applies to older as well as younger children. Jobcentre Plus advisers will not make that decision on parents’ behalf; we believe that such an approach would be counterproductive as a parent is unlikely to be able to work efficiently or participate effectively in work-related activities if they are worried about how their child is being cared for. However, if a parent makes representations that no suitable childcare is available to them, we will need to be satisfied that such claims are reasonable. Jobcentre Plus will ensure that the person has made reasonable efforts to determine what childcare is available in the area—for example, by contacting local family information services and visiting local childcare providers. If from its knowledge of local provision Jobcentre Plus believes that the search has been less than exhaustive, it will help the person to identify other possible options. When the local provision has been thoroughly investigated, the parent will need to explain why they consider each
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC380
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about our definition of affordable. It is within the tax credit limits: £175 for one child and £300 for two or more. As for 14 year-olds and out-of-school clubs, we should bear it in mind that lone parents can restrict availability down to 16 hours a week. Of course, 14 year-old children are in school for 30 hours a week, so within that context there should not be a problem, because the Childcare Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient childcare for children up to the age of 14.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to playing fields being sold off and extended schools not being available. The Government aim for all schools in England to become extended schools by 2010, offering a range of services, including childcare and study support, from 8 am to 6 pm weekdays throughout the year. Some 15,550 schools—that is, 71 per cent of the total, 17 per cent of them primary schools and 79 per cent of them secondary schools—with more than 5.2 million pupils on roll are now offering the core extended service.
Lord Northbourne: On extended schools, the local authorities are required to provide them, and those services refer to various things, including childcare, but do not refer to any activities for older children between 3.15 pm when they leave school and 6.30 pm, which is the end of the extended school period.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I think that the period is 8 am through to 6 pm. My understanding is that a range of services do cater for older children, but I do not have chapter and verse in front of me. I re-emphasise that the Childcare Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare. The extended school provision covers children to the age of 14; they should be catered for under that provision.
The Countess of Mar: Will the Minister confirm that it is illegal for a child of 14 to be in a house on its own?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am advised that it is not necessarily illegal, but I do not have chapter and verse on this and think that we should have that clarified in writing for the noble Countess.
Baroness Meacher: From what has been said, it is clear that there is a considerable amount of discretion for the personal adviser about whether childcare is reasonably available. That is the term used. The Minister did not answer the point about what would happen if a child refused to go to the available childcare facilities—and of course kids of 13 or 14 are very likely to refuse to do what one would dearly like them to do, as I know well. I feel that there is discretion for the personal adviser whether to take that seriously or whether simply to sanction the parent. Could the Minister give some sort of assurance on that?
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC381
Lord McKenzie of Luton: As I said earlier, children at the age of 14 are due to be in school for 30 hours a week, and a parent can restrict their availability to 16 hours a week. Therefore, routinely, there would not seem to be an issue; they would not necessarily be dependent on childcare outside of school. In any event, that issue would be part of the reasonableness decision if a parent continued to maintain that the provision that was there was not suitable because it was not, in practice, suitable for the particular child.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |