Clause 1
Welfare Reform Bill
10:30 am
Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I shall particularly address amendments 40 and 65. The Government have signalled their intention to introduce “work for your benefit” schemes, although I prefer to call the schemes Workfare, because I think that that better describes the Government’s intention. Liberal Democrat Members have considerable concerns about some of the proposed changes, and amendment 40 addresses parents with school-age children.
I make it clear that I have no problem with parents, or single parents in particular, working. My mother brought me and my two sisters up as a single parent, and I have no doubt that there are many other people in the same position. However, we are talking about working for benefit, and a change in Government policy to cover children of school age.
Under the proposals, from October 2010, single parents with children aged seven or over will be required to claim jobseeker’s allowance. After 12 months, they will be transferred to a private provider under flexible new deal provisions and, after 24 months, to work experience schemes. We will then have a situation in which single parents will be competing with jobseekers for the attention and support of flexible new deal providers, although there will be no additional incentives or resources to support that group.
Previous experience of asking private sector providers to deliver for single parents have shown that, without additional resources, they are unwilling to invest in this area. In what is usually described as “parking”, there are concerns that providers will take little action for the most vulnerable claimants, who will therefore be more likely to become eligible for the “work for your benefit” schemes.
The YWCA is concerned not only that this is a “work for your benefit” programme, but that it is also inappropriate for single parents and unlikely to lead to improved work outcomes. Single parents are likely to form a disproportionate number of the participants. We have gone from the Government talking about the idea in the Green Paper to a situation in which the proposal is going to be actively implemented.
Research from the Department for Work and Pensions itself suggests that there is little evidence—not just in this sector, but across others—that work for benefit schemes actually increase the likelihood of finding work. Such a scheme is least effective at getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high. I am sad to say that that is the case in many of our constituencies. It is also not effective for individuals with multiple barriers for work, and it can reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and failing to provide the skills and experience that employers value.
Despite all that evidence, the Government, in their Green Paper, preferred to rely on the following justification:
“The report points to evidence that full-time activity in such programmes leads to improved job outcomes: between a half and two-thirds of leavers found unsubsidised work at some point in the three years after leaving the Wisconsin programme. Australia's 'Work for the Dole' had a 7 per cent net increase in participants going into jobs compared to nonparticipants.”
Significantly, with reference to the Australian research, the Green Paper omitted a sentence that the research report included, in bold type:
“However, other research found that WfD was ineffective in helping participants find sustainable employment with only one-quarter in work three months after leaving the programme and 14 per cent employed in full-time jobs.”
It is seriously worrying that the DWP is prepared to consider work for benefit schemes without addressing some of the key problems that other programmes have encountered.
We must consider the current employment climate. At a time of rising unemployment, the Bill’s focus on conditionality and sanctions is inappropriate. We should be concentrating on protecting the jobs that already exist and strengthening the opportunities that are available for people to find work. Using the big stick might have been appropriate a few years ago, but not in the current economic climate. We are particularly concerned that rising unemployment will cause anxiety and fear—[Interruption.]