Welfare Reform Bill

That remark reminds me of a book that I read years and years ago in which a good lady working as a reaper on a farm in Hungary gave birth within seconds of putting down her scythe. Of course, seasonal work has to come into this, but the real problem is that we do not have a graduated withdrawal system across the board. The basic stumbling block has always been the 16-hour rule. Until we find a way in which to get rid of that we have to accept either disregard, as in this amendment, or absolute allowances, as in the noble Baroness’s first amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is clearly warming to her theme. I do not wish her to think that I am determined to thwart her at every turn. I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment, which she moved, as usual, with great passion. It is difficult to pick a figure that everyone can agree with; the amendment mentions £87 as acceptable for subsistence. It is even harder to do that when one is trying to balance one’s genuine concern for struggling parents with the cold necessity of working out what is affordable and practicable. I hope that my genuine concern is not in doubt. The figure of £87 that would be disregarded for lone parents is around the ball park of the numbers I have seen suggested. I believe that the Z2K Trust has calculated the subsistence level to be £64.30 a week, so an extra £22.70 would not seem excessive if there are children involved. But I now understand what the noble Baroness was saying, and that her ultimate objective is to have a £50 one. I expect that the Minister will be able to furnish us with his department’s most up-to-date statistics, along with his reasons for resisting the amendment. However, I hope that they will not be too strong, as I agree with everyone who has spoken. I shall be interested to hear his response, because there is a case to be made—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has just done—for protecting a certain level of income for single parents. I was interested in the figures that the noble Baroness gave. I should like to know why a single parent is perhaps slightly disadvantaged in these cases. That said, I should like to examine the figures that she gave us; if her proposal is really close to cost-neutral and the Minister said that it would not be unreasonable in the terms of the Bill, I would be more favourably disposed towards the amendment. The noble Baroness will understand why I cannot go any further than that at the moment. However, parents do maintain responsibility for their children and when they can afford to pay for their childcare, they must continue to do so. The Minister has already told us that when parents cannot afford to pay for childcare, the jobcentre will pay for them. As with so many debates that we have had in Grand Committee, the same theme raises its head: much depends on getting the action plans right. Getting childcare arrangements sorted out to the satisfaction of parents is crucial to the success of the scheme. For that reason, all noble Lords will be thinking carefully about how to approach action plans, as this matter will be returned to with some gusto on Report. What I have just said has very little to do with the finances behind the amendment, but I believe it to be true just the same. We should look at these two things together, as I have no doubt the Minister is about to do.