Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, again my education continues apace. I know that the Minister is a good man, that spring comes after winter and before summer, and now I know that he got on his bicycle. In moving this amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. I welcome the comments made by the Minister in response to the first grouping that the reasonable position is the default, not full-time being the default position. Our amendments seek to protect those with substantial responsibilities for children from falling foul of the conditionality regime due to their caring responsibilities. In particular, we seek to maintain the protections put in place by the Labour Government for such people. Some noble Lords, although not me, will recall the substantial discussions that took place in the House at an earlier time. Amendment 51CED would ensure that the limitations to the availability for work rules include in them reference to the availability of childcare which, as we have all accepted, is key to being able to work. Amendment 51FZZA similarly would write the existing safeguards into the relevant considerations when requirements are placed on a claimant. It is worth setting out the formal position, which was referred to by the Minister earlier. These established safeguards illustrate rather well the sort of issues that a lone parent or main carer faces when seeking to combine part-time paid work with caring for a child. The first safeguard is that a lone parent of a child aged under 13 need look for work only during school hours, and the Minister has just confirmed that that will remain the position. Secondly, lone parents who can be treated as available for work under JSA during school holidays or when a child has been excluded from school and is not receiving education do not necessarily have to take up a job. Thirdly, lone parents may restrict their availability for work if they are the subject of a parenting order or have entered into a parenting contract. Fourthly, those with substantial caring responsibilities for a child aged under 16 have to be available to take up a job only at 28 days’ notice rather than immediately if such responsibilities make immediate availability unreasonable. Lastly, when considering whether a claimant with a child under 16 has good cause either for refusing a jobseeker’s direction or turning down a job, the decision-maker must take into account whether childcare was reasonably available that is suitable for that child and parent. Those protections may not be perfect—although I have to say that everything that the previous Government did was perfect. One of their shortcomings is that for a claimant to put them to the test, they need to reach the stage of appealing against a sanction. That is a stage that many would be either reluctant to reach or unable to find the advice to go that far. That is why they are not perfect, but they are an important protection that we seek to continue. They will obviously be even more important now that the Government expect people with children aged five and upwards to be subject to full work requirements and are extending full work requirements to couples with children. We therefore ask the Minister to confirm that all those existing protections will remain under universal credit and to outline how they will apply to a member of a couple with substantial caring responsibilities. Along the lines that my noble friend Lady Hollis mentioned, ensuring that such protections are in place and effective will require advisers to be able to identify parents with relevant responsibilities, to know about suitable childcare locally and to be trained to recognise whether that is acceptable and appropriate for the child and parent. As we have said several times, and I know that the Minister acknowledges, childcare is central to the purpose and, we hope, the success of the Bill. Although we undoubtedly welcome the extra £300 million that the Government have made available, that is only really for those additional people who will qualify for childcare and does not go to meet the needs of existing claimants or the loss that they have suffered by the reduction in the percentage that they can claim. Because of that, we still do not know whether work will pay for everyone—the impact assessment having not included childcare costs in assessing whether someone would be better off in work. I have the same question for the Minister: if childcare costs mean that someone was not better off in work, would that count as a good reason—the new terminology for good cause—for a parent turning down a job? We know that the vast majority of parents with children want to combine work with bringing up a family. Gingerbread, which knows a thing or two about one-parent families states that single parents want to work: "““Increased income and financial independence are key motivators along with personal independence, the opportunity for social interaction with other adults, and to set a good example to their children””." Nearly half of single parents say that having almost any job is better than being unemployed and on benefits. However, despite all that the previous Government achieved, the continuing shortage of childcare means that finding a job that allows parents to care for children can be a struggle. That is particularly the case for the poorest. Parents in severe poverty who responded to a survey by the Save the Children Fund and the Daycare Trust said that a quarter of them had given up work; a third had turned down a job; and a quarter had not been able to take up education or training—all of them because of the difficulties of finding childcare. The Prime Minister has expressed his desire, which we absolutely agree with, to make this the most family-friendly Government ever. It is an aim we applaud and we are here to help, so these amendments will help the Government to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge. I beg to move.