Welfare Reform Bill

Since they came to power, this Government have put a lot of effort into addressing social and family problems in our society: school exclusions, poor school outcomes, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage violence and child poverty. Behind this Bill I see an excellent intention to reduce child poverty and, in particular, to reduce the number of children growing up in families that, from generation to generation, have not had any members in work. I congratulate the Government on these ambitions, but I fear that the Bill as drafted lays wide open the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that it may have unintended and undesirable consequences for the children and young people of parents who become subject to the plans and directions that jobcentres are going to persuade them to accept or, if necessary, to impose on them. So far the debate has focused on children in the 0 to 6 age group, and I defer to none in my support for family and parental care for children in those early years; it is most important. The emotional and social development of this age group depends crucially on secure attachment to caring parents or indeed to surrogate parents when appropriate. Good quality childcare and nursery education have their place, but they can never be a total substitute for the time, love and care given by parents whom the child loves and trusts. I shall speak to all four amendments in this group. They are relevant to this early-years group only in cases where the jobcentre plan prevents the parent from giving their child the family time it needs. They are particularly relevant to parents with children over the age of six because for that age group the lone or second parent is more liable to be forced by the jobcentre out into full-time work, possibly with substantial travelling time involved as well. It could mean an eight-hour working day plus an hour at either end for travel. Children aged from seven to 10 still need a lot of parental care and a family life for their healthy development. As the child gets to the older end of that age group, more institutional childcare can progressively replace some of the family care, but stress-free time with parents—I emphasise that the time should be stress-free—remains crucially important. Then comes the transfer to secondary school, which is a particularly stressful time for children. Even teenagers need family support, boundaries and guidance, and time to talk to their parents, although often they would rather die than admit it. Time is the language of relationships, and secure relationships within the family are the key to a child’s self-esteem, confidence and social skills, both in their school career and later. I suggest that the Bill lacks balance. It gives the Secretary of State powers to make some 387 regulations that will either direct parents into full-time work, or threaten to do so, or into work-related activities. Yet nothing in the Bill requires the Secretary of State or the jobcentre to have concern whatever for the effect of these actions on the children of parents who are subject to directions from the jobcentre. Can this be right from a Government who believe that "every child matters"? The nearest we get to a show of concern about dependent children is in new Clause 2, on page 7, line 3, which states that a direction, ""must be reasonable, having regard to the person’s circumstances"." We do not know what is meant by "circumstances" and there is no mention of what the Government mean by that. There is no reference to the effect on that person’s child or children. It is in the national interest that there should be such a mention. My Amendment 22A would lay upon the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that all actions taken in relation to a jobseeker are, ""applied with due consideration for the wellbeing of any child whose life may be affected by them"." This is an absolute minimum requirement to make the Bill respectable in the context of the Government’s policies for children, as set out in Every Child Matters and in subsequent legislation. My Amendment 22B goes further. It borrows from the Children Act 1989 and uses the phrase, ""the best interests of the child … shall be the paramount considerations"." Are the Government who have given us Every Child Matters prepared to accept that it is in the long-term interests of the nation as a whole that the best interests of our children should, indeed, be paramount? Amendment 22C is a long-stop amendment that would put at least some limit on the extent to which the Secretary of State and his jobcentres could damage family life in a labour market where weekend working is often a condition of getting a job. Nearly 50 per cent of jobs involve weekend working as a mandatory condition. That is becoming a serious problem for working parents. Finally, I regard Amendment 22D as crucial to securing an acceptable balance between the need to get jobseekers out to work and the needs of the nation’s children for parental time, nurture and family life. Unless jobcentre advisers or the person to whom the job of adviser is outsourced, or their decision-makers, understand the dynamics of the client’s family, they will be unable to make an informed judgment about the effect of any work plan on the client’s children; they will be unable to make an acceptable and balanced job plan for the child. I beg to move.