| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On the earlier issue on the age that children can be left at home, the law is not clear because it does not state an age when children can be left alone but parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. That is in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. I hope that that has dealt with the queries from noble Lords.
Baroness Meacher: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have supported the amendment, particularly the well considered contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. These are complex matters; there are grave risks involved for these teenage children and I shall have to consider whether to bring this back on Report. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Schedule 1 : Amendments connected to section 3
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall speak also to Amendments 75B and 76A. Over the past two weeks, thanks to the Minister’s responses to the multitudinous questions asked by Members of this Committee, we have discovered quite a lot about the proposed system for moving people on JSA closer to the workplace. Most of your Lordships’ concerns have centred, although not exclusively, on the transfer of single parents from income support when their children are less than seven years old. As I have understood the proposals up to now, when the child is only one year old, the parent is summoned to interview. I had not appreciated until last Thursday that it could be a group interview and not a one-to-one with a personal adviser. Will those group interviews, illustrated by part of the letter that I read out when moving Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, be the normal way of interviewing those single parents in the first instance? How this initial interview is conducted is of vital importance to the future conduct of the relationship between Jobcentre Plus and the single mother, not least because the individual circumstances of one parent in the group will differ from another. Does the Minister agree that a group interview simply cannot achieve that?
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC382
6.15 pm
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister’s advisers’ rapid response to my moving of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, last week. The response explains that a group information session is not a work-focused interview. A one-to-one work-focused interview will usually follow a group information session and it is the only mandatory aspect. However, the customer can decline the offer of a group information session without having to give a reason. In such instances a separate one-to-one work-focused interview will be arranged, usually in the jobcentre. I hope that that is well understood. It certainly was not by the person whose letter I partly read out. Therefore, it is a failure of information between Jobcentre Plus and the people who are called in the first instance to these group interviews.
Secondly, unless and until an individualised action plan—incidentally, I heard the Minister talking about “individualised” several times, so I have hope for the amendment that I moved on that subject some while ago—is agreed with the parent, which is not until the child is three years old, the only requirement on the parent is to turn up on a regular basis to the one-to-one interviews. At one point we heard that this is to be every three months. The illustrative examples—Panglossian, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, called them—tend to confirm that. In the circumstances, three months seems to be rather a short period. If she—it is usually she—fails to go to the interview without good cause on the day and at the time it is to happen, she risks losing part of her benefit. If she persists she loses more and more and ultimately can lose it altogether for six months.
This group of amendments, therefore, is to discover why the Government have decided that interviews at an age when the parent is still in constant care of the child are deemed so necessary. The point is particularly valid as the parent does not have to do anything except turn up for interviews. In view of that, what is the benefit of these repeated interviews?
Paragraph 260 of the notes on clauses implies that the reason for these repeated interviews is that they are the condition on which benefits continue to be paid. Are these interviews really the only way that these conditions can be met? It strikes me as a very time-consuming and expensive way of going about it. If the Minister is about to say that that is the system established under the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Government do not want to change it, perhaps I may gently remind him that we are dealing with a completely new set of affairs which was not even an idea in the mind of God when the 1995 Act was being drafted. What we need to look at is the effect of these provisions on today’s clientele—in this case, single parents.
Amendment 75B is intended to probe why paragraph 267, which lists the relevant benefits to which new Section 11B refers, includes incapacity benefit but not employment and support allowance, which is slowly replacing it. Incidentally, it would be helpful if the Minister would tell us when it is now intended that migration from income support to ESA should begin. New claimants have of course been on it for some months now.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC383
Amendment 76A, which I am afraid was an afterthought, refers to paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 1. Notes on clauses say that this “is intended” to amend the provision which allows people to continue to receive JSA temporarily without being available for work, having entered into a jobseeker’s agreement or being available for work. This intention is clearly needed when you migrate single parents with very young children from income support to JSA. I assume that it is also foreshadowing one of the groups which is to remain on income support and which will be transferred much later—those involved in court proceedings lasting longer than eight weeks.
Clearly, the intention is good, but the question arises about whether it is met by new paragraph 8 of existing Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995, which refers only to regulations being made which may—not shall—prescribe circumstances when a person does not need to fill the normal actively seeking work conditions and so on. That is particularly important when we consider Amendment 80, which concerns those groups that will remain on income support for a period after the Bill is enacted, which are many more than those involved in the court proceedings I was talking about just now. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: This amendment is welcome in that it gives us a chance to talk about the need for work-focused interviews, which seems slightly obscure for lone parents who have a very young child. However, this highlights the complexity of the rules in Jobcentre Plus and the fact that there is obviously much disparity around the country about how the rules are worked out. Obviously, there is guidance for Jobcentre Plus personal advisers about work-focused interviews, but we have just heard about someone who could not get to a group work-focused interview and was told that there was no flexibility. That is disturbing because they should have been told that if they made another appointment they could have a one-to-one work-focused interview in the afternoon. However, they were not told that but just that there was no flexibility. We come back to this leitmotiv which has been running through the whole Grand Committee about the training of Jobcentre Plus staff and the guidance issued to them. This shows that the guidance needs to be thoroughly overhauled.
The Countess of Mar: As well as the guidance, there is also the workload of the people involved to be considered. Perhaps the people in the jobcentre are overworked and, therefore, do not give full consideration to each case as they should.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his amendments to Schedule 1. Earlier in Committee, I outlined how Clause 3 deals with the entitlement conditions for JSA as set out in the Jobseekers Act 1995 and paves the way for a major simplification of the benefits system by enabling JSA to take on the role currently performed by income support.
Schedule 1 contains a number of further amendments to the Jobseekers Act and it is worth saying at this point that the provisions within it are not new. The
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC384
Paragraph 2 of the schedule removes the requirement for JSA claimants who are not subject to the jobseeking conditions to attend interviews and provide evidence about their jobseeking activity. Claimants who are available for work would normally be required to attend fortnightly interviews at their local Jobcentre Plus office in order to provide information and evidence of their availability for employment and active job search, often referred to as signing-on.
When we proposed moving people from income support to the modified form of JSA we recognised that it would be inappropriate for people who were on income support, who are not expected to be available for and actively seeking work, to be subject to the same conditionality as jobseekers. There was certainly no intention to require them to look for work or to sign on in the same way as current jobseekers. This paragraph makes it clear that the signing-on provisions do not apply to people on the modified regime, and I hope the Committee will agree that this is a sensible approach to take.
The provisions in new Section 11B of the Jobseekers Act, to which the second amendment refers, repeat the wording of existing provisions in the Social Security Administration Act in relation to work-focused interviews. In doing this, we have aimed to maintain consistency of legislation across the benefits system. For people in receipt of more than one benefit, these provisions ensure that we set out in regulations which benefits can be subject to a sanction for not attending a work-focused interview and the extent of any such sanction. The amendment would remove that important transparency for our customers, which I do not believe was the noble Lord’s intention.
I turn briefly to Amendment 76A. I can understand why the paragraph of Schedule 1 to which it refers may seem odd. There has always been a provision in the Jobseekers Act that enables prescribed groups to be exempt from the jobseeking conditions. It was drafted on the basis that everyone on JSA would be required to look for work, and it is used in limited circumstances when jobseekers attend training courses and are therefore not expected to sign on or actively to seek work. Paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 1 to the Bill amends this provision so that the current arrangements can continue as now for people who would normally be subject to the jobseeking conditions, while making it clear that the regulations will apply only to people who are not otherwise entitled to JSA, in particular under the new arrangements for groups currently on income support. That is why it provides that regulations may prescribe circumstances where income-related JSA can be available to a person without needing to meet the jobseeking conditions if they would not otherwise be entitled to benefit. This is very much a detailed
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC385
Several additional points were raised in connection with the amendments and otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the letter to which he referred on the previous day in Committee. He is right that a group information system is not a work-focused interview. One work-focused interview will usually follow a group information session. It is therefore not mandatory to attend a group session and action to impose a sanction cannot be taken for failing to attend. The noble Lord asked about work-focused interviews for parents with young children. The work-focused interview should operate at the point of first claim, then at six months and one year. That is the only conditionality for parents whose youngest child is below the age of one.
The noble Lord asked what is the purpose of work-focused interviews. It is as an opportunity to explain to our customers the journey that they may be required to undertake in future, to explain the functions of Jobcentre Plus, to explain issues around work and skills and, generally, to be a keeping-in-touch opportunity for people who would otherwise not necessarily be focused on the labour market.
The noble Lord asked about the IB to ESA migration timescale. The plan, which we previously discussed, is for all claimants on incapacity benefits to be transferred between 2010 and 2013 but, as ever, we are keeping the issues under review and the final timetable has not been determined. I hope that deals with the points the noble Lord raised and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: Is a jobseeker entitled to take along a friend or adviser to a meeting at a job centre?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, we have made clear that at various stages it is quite appropriate for somebody to have with them a friend, an adviser or possibly somebody to help out on language issues. That is an integral part of the arrangements.
6.30 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: Yet again, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He spoke early on in his few words about this being a major simplification. I am not sure that many people outside this Room, and perhaps a few in it, would agree with him. Certainly initially, until it is all worked through, the Bill produces a subset—I should not call it a subset, but I do—of jobseeker’s allowance and rolls it into a single benefit.
Yes, of course I understand that the fully fledged jobseeker’s allowance as it has been up to now requires fortnightly so-called “signing on” interviews because the job adviser needs to be satisfied that people really are actively seeking work through applying for posts through advertisements and the various other ways in
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC386
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Would it help the noble Lord if I expanded on my comments? There are various steps along the conditionality road. There is the requirement to attend the periodic work-focused interviews when the youngest child is below the age of one. Therefore, for older children, there is a requirement for regular work-focused interviews and for an action plan to be drawn up. On our proposed piloting, when the youngest child reaches the age of three we are looking to have pathfinders on the work-related activity. There is that progression until one gets to the full jobseeker’s allowance requirements.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think all of us have understood the proposal correctly. Surely the only conditionality on a young single parent is not turning up for an interview before the child is three. Is that right or wrong?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Can the noble Lord kindly repeat his question?
Lord Skelmersdale: The only thing that single parents have to do is to turn up to these work-focused interviews. Until the child is three, they do not have to do anything else. I ask again: what on earth is the point of these very early intermediate work-focused interviews?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The point of a work-focused interview is to give an individual a chance to engage with what is entailed in moving further towards the job market. If you do not have the opportunity of that work-focused interview at an earlier stage, the first engagement under the noble Lord’s proposition seems to be when the youngest child is aged three. That adds to the period where the lone parent may have been away from the job market. We know that some engagement, even if it is a work-focused interview, generally enhances the chances of people accessing work at an earlier stage than they otherwise might. If you say that they do not have to come near the jobcentre until their youngest child reaches the age of three, that is a gap that would make it more difficult for many people to access work or get themselves involved in those work-related activities as quickly as they otherwise might.
Lord Skelmersdale: What I am trying to explain is that, as I understand the position, they go along to these intermediate work interviews, they are preached at yet again and they do not have to do anything about it. I simply do not believe that this is a practical way in which to go about things. We are clearly not going to
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC387
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I hope just to reinforce the points that I have already made. It is mandatory for people to turn up for their work-focused interview but, beyond that, there is no requirement for them to engage in further work-related activity or job seeking or anything of that nature, although there is the provision for them to do that if they want to and the opportunity for them to engage before the youngest child reaches the age of three. It is up to lone parents whether they want to do that; it is about giving people opportunities, not just about conditionality.
Lord Skelmersdale: Surely to goodness, that is explained in the initial interview. We have been worrying about lone parents who are worried about childcare, and so on. Nursery schools, followed by playgroups, start these days with children at a very young age. I cannot remember when my grandson first went, but it was certainly before the age of one. It might be that those parents are satisfied and go back to work very quickly, but I still do not see that these intermediate interviews will have any effect whatever. I suppose that the Minister will say, “Ah, we’ve got to have a pilot and find out!” What happens if I am right?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: We are getting a bit repetitive and, I think, making somewhat heavy weather of this. It may well be the case that because an individual comes in for a work-focused interview and understands what Jobcentre Plus is about and what the journey in due course towards employment may be, that person may come to focus on the fact that they wish to update their skills, for examples. The work-focused interview may well have prompted that thought in their minds, and they voluntarily may wish to engage to undertake some training and upgrade those skills before they get into any work-related activity requirement. If we do not have the work-focused interviews, it is less likely that those opportunities will occur or present themselves to individuals. I do not see what problem the noble Lord has about this, as it is a limited engagement that people have at these interviews to open up opportunities for them so that they can progress to work faster than the mandatory system may require.
Lord Skelmersdale: At the risk of this turning into a playschool birthday party, I had better withdraw the amendment at this stage. However, I have no doubt that we will come back to something very similar to it at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 75B to 76A not moved.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC388
Clause 6 : Transitional provision relating to sections 3 to 5
Lord Skelmersdale: In moving Amendment 78, I shall speak also to Amendments 81 and 82.
Clause 6 is designed to support the migration of people from income support either to ESA or to JSA according to the Peers’ information pack. It does two things: first, they do not have to do anything when they make the move, as it is done for them administratively; secondly, it will ensure that the new benefit is income-protected at the point of change. That is fair enough, but for how long is that protection to continue? I have never seen a social security change such as is outlined in this Bill whereby no one loses out; there are inevitably gainers and losers. This is particularly relevant where the child element in income support is taken into account. Are the Government really saying that there will be no losers?
I apologise for the wording of Amendments 81 and 82, which are grouped with Amendment 78. I am afraid that it may have caused some confusion among the Minister’s advisers. My problem is that I could not find a formulation that included this current Bill when enacted and all previous Acts passed, or regulations made under this and previous Acts, while excluding future Acts.
Over the past few years, it has become commonplace to find words identical to those in Clause 7. This has come to worry me more than a little, because who knows what the future will bring? Will the Minister still be en poste this time next year? Will I still be badgering him after the forthcoming State Opening of Parliament? Who is to tell?
Teasing apart, what future Acts can possibly be relevant, or, as the subsection has it, be likely to be relevant, to the move from income support to jobseeker’s allowance, or even ESA, and how could they accomplish something that is not accomplished by the Jobseekers Act 1995 as amended by this Bill, and the statutory instruments flowing from the amended Act? A cynic would suggest that the draftsman is covering himself in case the formulation in this Bill and the myriad regulations flowing from it are incomplete and future Acts and the regulations flowing from them will be needed to complete the job.
If this were not the very epitome of a framework Bill, I would not be nearly so worried about subsection (5), as any specific measures would be in the Bill. However, here we have a situation where everything is done by regulations, the rationale for which is described in the various clauses in the Bill. In essence, the Bill allows the Government to do anything they like by means of regulations. What possible future Bills or orders do the Government think might just be necessary? Even if they become necessary in years to come, why cannot those future Bills contain provisions to amend earlier Acts of Parliament, as we all know does this one?
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC389
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |