Welfare Reform Bill

I move to the other end of the age spectrum. I shall speak also to Amendments 27, 31, 91, 156, 157, 159, 160 and 161. Age Concern and Help the Aged have asked me to table this group of amendments because they have, ""grave concerns about the impacts of increased conditionality on people aged over 50"." We all know that life is supposed to begin at 40 but, sadly, too frequently employment ends at 50. With their something-for-something welfare reform agenda, the Government are committed to offer greater and more effective employment support for which benefit recipients must do more to obtain work. This legislation will allow sanctions to be applied to those who fail to comply. In its published research on the impact of Pathways to Work, the DWP acknowledges that people over the age of 50 may need more assistance with moving off incapacity benefits than younger people. Evaluations of New Deal 25 plus have also found that the type of provision available has not always been appropriate to older clients. Research commissioned by Age Concern in 2006 found that personal advisers did not necessarily have the awareness, skills and confidence to provide the type of personalised support suited to older clients. In March 2009, Age Concern and Help the Aged commissioned IFF Research to conduct a qualitative research of jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit and employment support allowance recipients over the age of 50, and I will depend heavily on that research for what I have to say. The research included recent and longer-term claimants with varied personal circumstances and work backgrounds. Some had held professional posts until relatively recently. Others had complicated mental or physical health histories and had struggled to work for a long time. Overall, the research found that the intervention and support for the over-50s is woefully inadequate. There is little evidence that Jobcentre Plus provides effective support for them. Conversely, there is evidence that age discrimination in the workplace is the biggest barrier to them returning to work. Many over-50s welcome the prospect of greater and more effective employment support, particularly adviser support, the development of an action plan and the availability of training and development. Given that almost no subject who took part in the research could recall being offered any appropriate support activities, they did not consider these activities should be mandatory. They felt that mandating participating in work or work-related activities was missing the point at best and potentially harmful at worst. IB claimants found the threat of sanctions distressing, and some said that they might be deterred from signing up, particularly if they had fluctuating health conditions. Many of those interviewed said that advisers often made inappropriate suggestions. For example, a woman who had previously been a lecturer in adult education was told to apply for a position as an engineering lecturer. Another, an engineer, was told to apply for a job as a toilet cleaner. Participants who agreed to apply for recommended jobs reported feeling ridiculous, as they were aware that they had no experience in the area but felt that they had to apply or their benefits would be affected. Many mentioned that only low skilled work was available. At the expiry of 13 weeks on benefits, they reported that minimum-wage jobs were frequently suggested to them, regardless of their experience or skills. Those with higher skills reported lower expectations of the support the JCP service provides and regarded staff more as administrators than advisers. On the other hand, over-50s with lower skills wanted career guidance and were disappointed when JCP failed to meet that need. There was a perception among the over-50s in receipt of JSA that: ""JCP offers an impersonal service, weighed down with bureaucracy and chasing targets"." I have already mentioned that age discrimination by employers is a major barrier to returning to work. The recession has compounded jobseekers’ views that there are even fewer quality jobs available to them. Publicity about the dearth of jobs available to recent university graduates has not helped to alleviate that view. Employers, somewhat naturally, are likely to select a young person who will work for a lower salary than they are an older, well qualified and experienced person. A substantial majority of unemployed men and women over 50 are unemployed for no reason other than the circumstances that currently pertain. They want to work, but circumstances are against them. They already have established work habits and routines. It appears unreasonable that someone who is up against it should be penalised when one half of the something-for-something bargain is not in place. Amendment 27 proposes that the Secretary of State commissions his own research to ascertain the over-50s’ experience in jobseeking and what would improve their chances of obtaining employment. It is clear that the Government lack the evidence to support their position that everyone under pensionable age should be governed by this legislation. Until workplace age discrimination is dealt with and appropriate facilities and assistance are made available by JCP, I hope that the Minister will agree that the over-50s should be relieved of the conditionality conditions and that he will accept my amendments. I beg to move.