Welfare Reform Bill

This has been an exceptionally good debate and I thank everyone who has participated for the manner in which they have done so. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for the way in which he introduced his amendments. I think that he acknowledged the Government’s commitment to tackling and improving the well-being of children generally, and he made specific reference to Every Child Matters. Before I move on to the amendments, I stress that, as noble Lords know, the Government have taken the bold step of committing to eradiate child poverty by 2020, and these changes are part of the strategy to achieve that goal. Moving families from worklessness and into work is the best route out of poverty and the disastrous effects that it can have on children’s well-being. Living in a household where no adult is working puts a child at a 61 per cent risk of poverty, with all the lifelong disadvantages that that often brings. Therefore, by requiring parents to take up and engage with "work for your benefit", we will ensure that as many people as possible are able to transform their lives, improve their well-being and increase their families’ incomes. I turn first to Amendment 22A. When requiring parents to undertake work experience, any decisions concerning their treatment or the activities that they are to undertake will be made with due consideration for the well-being, welfare and education of any child whose life may be affected by them. That must be the case. In "work for your benefit" pilots, providers and advisers must take into account all the jobseeker’s barriers to work, not just those specified in the amendment. This will be outlined in the contract specification. In addition, before any jobseeker is referred to the "work for your benefit" programme, their case will be reviewed to ensure that it is suitable for them. Any caring responsibilities will be taken into account and any restrictions that parents have placed on their job search to take account of the caring and well-being of their children will be brought forward into "work for your benefit". For example, if a parent has restricted their job search to part-time work on the grounds that they need to look after their children, we would expect them to be available only for the same hours under "work for your benefit". On Amendment 22B, I think we are all agreed that protecting the well-being of children is of fundamental importance in all that a Government do. It underpins the principle of this legislation. Clause 1 is not designed to compel parents to do work experience which is not appropriate for them or their families. Instead, we want to ensure that parents and other unemployed people are given the help and support they need to prepare for and, when appropriate, enter work. In general, we believe that work-related activity, including the "work for your benefit" scheme, will have a beneficial impact on individual claimants and their children. Indeed, evidence shows that the benefits to children of their parents working are more far-reaching than increased income alone. Children have reported the benefits of parental employment, and parents making the move into paid work have observed positive psychological benefits in their children. For example, a study of newly working households found reduced stigma among children as a result of their parents leaving the benefits system and consequently fitting in more with their peers, and having a less stressful home life due to fewer arguments about money. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred in particular to the importance of having stress-free time with parents. In-depth interviews with older children of working lone parents showed that they can be a good role model for their children. The children felt that their lives had improved since their mothers started work, and they were protective and supportive of their mother participating in the labour market. Increased income also meant increased access to transport, and this opened up access to a wider range of beneficial social networks and opportunities. For these children, the increased status of having a mother in paid work also provided a welcome boost to their self-esteem. Only parents who are subject to full JSA conditionality will be asked to participate in "work for your benefit", so this will apply only to those lone parents whose youngest child is seven or older, not those with younger children who are transferred to JSA when income support is abolished. In addition, before referring anyone to the "work for your benefit" programme, an adviser will review with the jobseeker their circumstances and barriers to work to ensure that the programme is appropriate for them. This will act as a safeguard to ensure that nobody is inappropriately required to take part in the programme. We will also incorporate safeguards to ensure that the work experience offered is suitable and relevant to the individual. For example, the restrictions specified in a parent’s jobseeker's agreement relating to the days and hours they may restrict their availability for work will be carried forward into "work for your benefit". As I said earlier, this will mean that if a parent has agreed that they will look only for part-time work, then they will be required to undertake only part-time work experience. "Work for your benefit" providers will also have a responsibility to ensure that adequate childcare is in place to enable parents to participate fully in the programme. I reassure noble Lords that, when making decisions about the type of work-related activity or work experience to be undertaken, Jobcentre Plus will always give paramount consideration to the well-being of any child who may be affected by them. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked about that in particular. But it remains the case that the surest and most sustainable way to address child poverty is to support more parents into paid work; work that pays and that enables parents to manage the careful balance between employment and family life. Amendment 22C would also affect lone parents with older children who have existing obligations to look for work. Under the Bill, parents’ caring responsibilities will be taken into account at the very beginning of a claim for jobseeker’s allowance when the jobseeker’s agreement is set up. It sets out the type and level of work and, by extension, work experience they are required to undertake. It is up to the parent, working with Jobcentre Plus advisers, to decide the amount and the pattern of activity they are available for after considering any caring responsibilities and the availability of childcare. Amendment 22C would prevent parents having the flexibility to tailor their work experience, which in turn could restrict their future job search to their family circumstances if they so chose, and while I acknowledge concerns about family life, I believe that it is up to the individuals concerned to decide when they spend time with their children. We would not want to specify in legislation that people in work should spend at least one day at the weekend with their children, so it seems unfair and unreasonable to do so for those receiving benefits. Amendment 22D specifically mentions a jobseeker who is the parent of a child under the age of 16. As I have already mentioned, parents with older children who are claiming jobseeker’s allowance are required to be available for work for as many hours as their caring responsibilities permit, and can limit this to 16 hours. Jobcentre Plus staff are trained in developing and understanding a claimant’s circumstances and ensuring that jobseekers’ agreements and action plans are appropriate. When making agreements with a parent, advisers will ensure that the claimant’s wishes and family circumstances are considered. They will agree with the parent the appropriateness of activities to ensure that they do not impact adversely on the welfare, well-being or education of their child. This will be detailed in guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, if there is a failure to carry out the agreement or an activity outlined in the plan, it could lead to further action and sanctions. To consider the imposition of a sanction, an adviser will refer the evidence to an expert decision-maker who will make a decision based on the reasonableness of the activity agreed between the adviser and the parent. The evidence may relate to the welfare or education of any child involved and could include, for example, attendance at school, sickness and the availability of appropriate childcare. Jobcentre Plus advisers and decision-makers are essential to the successful delivery of these programmes. Advisers and decision-makers are already highly skilled and currently deal with complex circumstances in their discussions with parents. We will build on this by enhancing the comprehensive training package that they already undertake. Jobcentre Plus advisers and decision-makers will be suitably trained so that they can judge, in discussion with the parent, the effect which advice or directions may have on the welfare, education or care of the children involved, and will ensure that they are able to deliver the more personalised and family-focused approach we require. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, stressed the issue of proper training for our staff. It is essential and runs through the provisions of this Bill and much else. It is especially relevant when dealing with individuals and their families or those with mental health conditions. Before implementation, staff will also receive appropriate training to ensure that safeguards are in place. We will also ensure that "work for your benefit" providers must have the knowledge and skills to take into account the range of customer circumstances, not just those specified in this agreement. This will be outlined in the contract specification. A number of particular issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about home educators. We will consider an amendment to this effect in due course, but I should say that while recognising that parents can choose to home educate their children, the funding is not provided by Government to do so. Parents in this situation do not receive their benefit based on their status as home educators. It would therefore be inconsistent with Government principles if regulations which apply to other parents did not apply to home educators. However, I am sure that we will have a chance to develop the issue when we come to the noble Lord’s amendment. One noble Lord asked about carers, and I hope I can be forgiven for forgetting who did so. They will be exempt from benefit conditionality. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised the issue of where a jobseeker is in prison and has children under the age of 16. If I may, I will reflect a little more and get some advice so that I can give him a considered reply rather than a glib response. Again, it is a very important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in support of the amendments, referred to harm being inflicted on children. Of course I do not believe that there is anything in what we are proposing that should or could lead to harm being inflicted on children. That is dependent on making sure that Jobcentre Plus providers are engaged, properly trained and alert to all the issues that have properly raised this afternoon in relation to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He specifically referred to issues arising in infancy—children under the age of seven. Nothing in the provisions would require parents of children under the age of seven to have to take up or seek employment.