The
Chairman: Order. There are four conversations going on in
the room. I ask hon. Members to listen to the hon. Member for Glasgow,
East.
John
Mason: Thank you, Mr. Hood; you are very
generous. I
asked the Barnardo’s representative in our evidence session
where this would leave families and children. The answer seems to be
that the extended family will help the children to eat, that the
parents might be out stealing, or that people will just not be eating
at all. The constituent to whom I referred told me that he had gone
three days without eating in the previous week. That is the kind of
world in which, I am afraid, we are still
living. I
am not against sanctions per se, if people have extra income above the
amount that they need to live on. However, the benefit system is not
exactly generous and does not give people a lot of leeway to meet such
sanctions. New clause 8 proposes a means inquiry, which would help to
re-emphasise that we must know people’s real
circumstances—not theoretically or on paper—when we are
talking about moving into
sanctions. Clearly,
we are living in a society with many different kinds of people. There
are people who try to screw the system to get every penny they can get
and who contribute absolutely nothing to society. It is those people
who the Government are probably seeking to target through the Bill. I
am not opposed to that, but I urge them to think of the people in
society who are struggling, who are scared of this House and of
bureaucracy, and who find it difficult to read and write and to take
part in our incredibly complicated system. I appeal to Ministers to
consider how we can better protect these people, and I would suggest
that these new clauses would help to protect
them.
Paul
Rowen: I support the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the
Scottish National party, on these new clauses.
Throughout
our proceedings, the Government have made much of international
comparisons when they have talked about the success of using sanctions
as a means of getting people back into work. However, there is one
major difference when one looks at these international comparisons: the
level of the benefits that are paid in the Netherlands or Australia,
for example, compared with what is paid in the UK. That is part of the
reason why many voluntary bodies and charities have expressed concerns
about certain aspects of the Bill. When sanctions are applied, that
should not, in itself, result in hardship—for example, for
children—and lead to people falling further into
poverty.
As the hon.
Gentleman said, new clause 8 would not stop the implementation of
sanctions, but would ensure that, before those sanctions were
implemented, a proper means inquiry was carried out into what effect
any particular sanction would have on a family. That would act as an
important stop on the Department, because one of the overriding threads
running through concerns raised about the Bill is the way in which
sanctions will affect vulnerable people. I know that Ministers have
tried to reassure us that situations will not arise that result in a
vulnerable person losing benefit, either because of a mental health
problem or some other issue. That is well made as a general point, but
the new clauses would ensure that there was adequate protection via the
means inquiry to ensure that safeguards were in
place.
12.45
pm If
the purpose of the Bill is to encourage more people back into work, it
is clearly not in anyone’s interest if, as a result of sanction,
a child is put into care because the parent is unable to cope with the
situation, because the cost of that to the state would be much greater.
I thus hope that the Minister will consider this important safeguard.
If the wording being suggested is not correct, I hope that the Minister
will agree to look at it and come back with a suitable provision on
Report. We all want a Bill that works and a system of sanctions that
has the desired effect, but we have severe concerns that there are no
adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the effects of those
sanctions do not result in a person being put in a much worse position,
with consequential effects on other members of their
family.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): This has been an interesting debate. The hon.
Members for Glasgow, East and for Rochdale have both forgotten the
basic point: there is a contract between the applicant and the state
and if one obeys the rules, no sanctions will be applied. It is not
unreasonable for us to insist that people should obey reasonable rules
that are set down, with appropriate provisions to consider
people’s individual circumstances and also offer people a route
out of work.
Paul
Rowen: I accept the Minister’s point, but does she
not accept that the state often gets it wrong, and that the proposal
that is put forward—whether it be at work, or
whatever—can be inappropriate for a person, which can result in
hardship?
Ann
McKechin: With the greatest respect, that is why we have a
comprehensive appeals procedure in place. For example, only one in 10
jobseeker’s allowance customers has their benefits sanctioned.
Only a little over 1 per cent. of lone parents received second, or
subsequent, sanctions in 2006-07. I respectfully put it to both hon.
Gentlemen that the sanction system works and that we have in place an
adequate system of protection and appeals.
All three new
clauses relate to sanctions. New clauses 6 and 8
attempt—although clumsily—to redesign the sanction
system. They would introduce a minimum level below which the income of
an individual or family could not fall for them to be subject to a
sanction. That minimum would apply even if they were being sanctioned
for not fulfilling their obligations to engage with the support that we
were offering them. It would be applied only after all outgoings were
taken into account. I know that the motivation behind the measures, as
both hon. Gentlemen have stated, is to ensure that vulnerable people
are protected, but they are
unnecessary. Hardship
provisions, minimum levels of benefit and extensive safeguards already
exist in the benefit system to ensure that the most vulnerable
claimants are not unfairly sanctioned or left destitute. In addition,
income replacement benefits, which are the only ones subject to
sanctions, make up only a proportion of the overall support that a
customer would seek to receive from the Government. For example,
benefits paid to parents in respect of their children and housing
benefit, which is one of the most generous systems in Europe, as well
as
council tax benefit, tax credits and disability living allowance, are
all unaffected. Vulnerable people are unlikely to lose all their income
and become destitute, because their housing benefit and council tax
benefit remain
intact. We
accept that the sanctions system is not perfect and we are continuously
reviewing current practice to see if it can be improved. That is why we
are exploring an escalating sanctions model in pathfinder areas as we
test the Gregg model of conditionality. We are in the early stages of
designing that model. As we progress, we will engage with a range of
stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place to
make sure that vulnerable claimants are protected and that the existing
rights of appeal
remain. We
must not lose sight of the fact that there is a very simple way for
claimants to avoid being sanctioned in the first place: by meeting
their obligations as citizens to prepare or look for work. That is the
essence of an active welfare state, and such a system has been adopted
by every other western
economy. The
new clauses would give the very different message that benefits could
be received with no conditions attached, and that even if a claimant
had no intention of ever attempting to better their chances of
employment, despite being clearly able to do so, taxpayers would still
be supposed to pick up the bill for supporting them. That is the
essence of the passive welfare state that has quite rightly been
rejected. New
clause 7 is an attempt to ensure that no jobseeker will be sanctioned
for refusing employment if the job on offer paid less a week than they
would have got on jobseeker’s allowance. It would not apply to
claimants of ESA or income support, because they are not required to
take specific employment. Again, we believe that the new clause is
unnecessary. The existing sanctions regime ensures that no one is
sanctioned for refusing a job that pays less than the national minimum
wage, which ensures a minimum income from employment. That is topped up
by generous tax credits for those on a low income and those with
children. Furthermore, we will help to ease the transition into work
with the job grant for jobseekers who have been unemployed for more
than six
months. The
sanctions system is designed primarily to be an incentive to re-engage.
It is the threat of a sanction that has the greatest effect, not the
sanction itself, as is proven by the figures to which I have already
referred. For that to remain true, the system must remain transparent,
simple and clearly linked to the behaviour of the
customer. This
new clauses would create a system that, frankly, would be so
bureaucratic and resource-intensive that it would effectively cripple
the sanctions system. Given that, and taking account of our current
safeguards, I urge the hon. Member for Glasgow, East to withdraw the
new clause.
John
Mason: I must confess to disappointment at the
Minister’s harsh tone. If there had been a bit of sympathy, I
would have been a bit more supportive. The contract is an interesting
idea. If we enter employment, we clearly have a contract with employer
and we have to fulfil certain conditions, but there has to be a minimum
standard in a civilised society below which we do not fall. Even our
prisoners are entitled to certain levels of food and benefit. Our
children should also be entitled to such benefits. While I am happy to
accept that the wording of the new clauses is not entirely perfect, I
am not happy to withdraw new clause
6. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
5] Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
9Grandparents
national insurance
credit ‘(1) The Social
Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) is amended as
follows. (2) In section
23A(3)(c) (Contributions credits for relevant parents and carers),
after first “in”, insert “unpaid care for
20 hours in that week or more of a grandchild under the age
of 12 or of an ill, frail or disabled family member, friend or partner,
or (d) otherwise in”.’.—(John
Robertson.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
John
Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This
debate might be a two-parter, because I know that the Minister for
Employment and Welfare Reform will delight in giving me an answer. The
aim of the new clause is to ensure that a person of working age does
not face a pensions penalty in retirement because of taking on a
significant caring role for a grandchild or somebody else in need.
Grandparents Plus, which champions the vital role of grandparents and
the wider family in children’s lives, has been working on the
new clause. It provides a welcome voice to this debate because it
represents a section of the population that is not always
heard. An
early-day motion in favour of such a change has received cross-party
support and has been signed by more than 80 Members. As a grandparent,
I suppose that I should declare a prospective interest in new
clause
9—[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. Hon. Members might be a little demob
happy because we are coming towards the end of the sitting, but we must
have
order.
John
Robertson: Perhaps the noise was being made by Committee
members discussing their grandchildren—I am being a little
disingenuous. The
new clause is important. Although I am not in the early throes of my
working life, I, like many grandparents, am far from retirement age. I
hope to
have plenty of years in which to work and contribute to society.
However, my family comes first, and many grandparents sacrifice their
working lives for their grandchildren. The new clause would amend the
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to create a credit
for those of working age who provide 20 hours or more per week of
unpaid care for a grandchild under the age of 12 or for an “ill, frail or
disabled family member, friend or
partner”. In
the Pensions Act 2007, the Government introduced a weekly credit for
parents, foster parents and carers to be specified by regulation that
would go towards their pension to make up for the contributions that
they would be making through national insurance. That measure did not
include grandparents. When that issue was debated in the other place,
Ministers promised to look into it further. I understand that the
relevant regulations will be laid before Parliament in the coming
weeks. I urge Ministers to use the new clause or the regulations to
ensure that someone caring for a grandchild or a person in need to whom
they are close will be entitled to the weekly
credit. I
am sure that all hon. Members agree that anybody of working age who
cares for a young grandchild, family member, friend or partner who is
ill, frail or disabled for more than 20 hours a week is sacrificing
time in which they could be working or engaging by
doing something that is as socially beneficial as being in employment
and making national insurance contributions. That is surely recognised
by the 2007 Act through the introduction of the credit for parents,
foster parents and other
carers. There
is an obvious question of fairness and equality. When a
person—whether they are a parent or a grandparent—is
caring for a child in the family instead of working, why should there
be discrimination on their state pension? How can we say that someone
caring for a family member, partner or friend is less deserving of a
full state pension than someone who has spent time caring for their
child? The
new clause is emphatically not about paying someone for care. There is
no gain for somebody who is receiving a full state pension. It would
give parity for state pension contributions. I wish to consider the
specific case of grandparents who are close to retirement age, for whom
the issue is more pressing. The current situation means that if a
mother stays at home to care for her child, she gets a weekly credit
towards her
pension. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
