Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I have not conducted a detailed survey on that. I am also unsure what the 400,000 or 430,000 who will win approximately £50 say. There will always be winners and losers, but what I like about this policy programme is that there are almost twice as many winners as losers, and they will win an awful lot more money, which helps the transition to the policy. Let me return to the evidence of parents. The Government document states:"““Many out of work mothers, both lone and partnered, are looking for jobs that will fit in with their children's schooling—i.e. jobs that are part-time and preferably within school hours.””" That is obvious and self-evident—any parent knows that—but it is important to have survey evidence so that the argument has an element of objectivity. The document goes on to say that out-of-work mothers"““tend to look for work that is local and flexible, so that they can be available if, for example, their child is taken ill.””" All of us parents have been there—have we not?—when our children get sick and we send them off in the morning, tying their scarves up tight and hoping that no one notices. When they do notice, we get a call. I have had to make that run—even though, as I am told, as a man I have no rights in respect of child care responsibilities. Some of us in the younger generation are new men, although I hesitate to apply that description to myself. The document also states that those factors—locality and flexibility—"““are often seen as being more important than the type of job they move into.””" It is all about flexibility, which we need. All of us parents have been there and understand that. Child care is quite often a nightmare, and always a juggle. Half the time parents are terrified that they will get a call just when they have an important meeting to go to. The document also states:"““A study of lone parents who had recently moved into work had overwhelmingly chosen jobs where their hours fitted with looking after their children. It was common for interviewees to be working between 16 and 29 hours per week.””" Again, there was almost certainly not the flexibility to have a mini-job. Mini-jobs are important in enabling such flexibility. It is not right for parents, particularly parents of little children, to be forced into endless hours of work, or to work for more than 16 hours. New clause 2(5) is therefore extraordinarily unhelpful, and a retrograde step. On parental employment, what happens when children are five and six is telling. This is about the youngest tots. When children are that age, parents are just going out into work, having previously perhaps been full-time parents. Employment of lone parents of children that age is about 55%, but the employment of partnered mothers is 75%, which is the parental employment rate. We can see, therefore, that there has been a massive societal shift into joint working among couples. There has been a move away from the traditional old-style model, whereby the bloke goes off to work and the woman stays at home to mind the kid and the kitchen sink, to more economic sharing and greater equality, which is a positive thing.