---

Welfare Reform Bill

I am afraid I am going to be the grit in the ointment on the amendment, which will dismay many Members of the Committee. During our extensive debates on Clause 1 we have, from time to time, strayed into Clause 2, for which I was in part, but by no means entirely, to blame. Of course no one could but sympathise enormously with those single parents who have disabled children on disabled living allowance, at whatever rate it is. To that extent, of course I go along with the amendment—at least, I would if I were convinced that it was really necessary. The Minister has already said that a lone parent having a disabled child—I assume this means any disabled child, at whatever rate of disability living allowance or anything else that he or she might be on—would be just cause for that parent not undertaking the various duties envisaged under Clause 2. That is, of course, with the exception of the initial interview and those that are repeated every so many months. That is why I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. However, it would help the Committee if the Minister could use the amendment to clarify a point that has already arisen in our debates: at what point in the child’s life does the single mother have her first jobcentre interview? The Minister spoke on Tuesday of progression to work happening with any force only when the child reaches three and continues up to seven. Even between these ages I have not identified any compulsion beyond, as I say, being sanctioned for not turning up to interviews. I may be wrong in that assumption, but if I am right it makes me wonder quite what much of Clause 2 is about. If the only sanction up to the age of three is for not turning up for an interview, there is nothing much to worry about whether or not you have a disabled child. It would certainly shorten our debates if the Minister could give an outline now of what is expected of a single mother and when, no matter what position she is in regarding her children.