---

Welfare Reform Bill

The new clause would create a new exemption from the application of Section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995. It would raise the absence of childcare facilities as a good cause for not fulfilling the obligations of the jobseeker’s agreement. I know from our earlier debate on childcare that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is concerned about the problems posed to parents of young children. In a way, the noble Lord is quite right: the problems of older children are arguably even more likely to be serious than those of younger children. I think that all noble Lords would probably agree with this, and hope that Members of the Committee see that I am as concerned as they are. I reiterate the point raised earlier that childcare is such a big part of parents’ lives on their way back into the job market that it will necessarily be a major element in an action plan. Your Lordships may have decided, perhaps rightly, that I am fixated—to use my word to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—about the super-affirmative regulation that she proposed what seems weeks ago; perhaps it was, I am not entirely sure. However, I was interested to hear what the Minister said in response to that, as it is clear that childcare will be a stumbling block unless adequate provision is put in place. I hold to the view that this must be worked out in advance by a participant in a scheme and the adviser, and the scheme should be constructed accordingly to take account of school hours, available childcare, visiting rights if applicable, and so on. When we were discussing the changes in the regulations in November 2008, I made the point that no one wanted to see children running wild, joining gangs and so on. Equally, no one wants to see them watching rubbish television for hours on end or, even worse, sitting in front of a computer—arguably for even longer. There is an awful lot of damaging material available on computers unless the parents sensibly block it—assuming that they know how, which is by no means always the case. Having said this, I am not sure that I can support the noble Baroness’s amendment. It is unusual in that it places an almost insurmountable standard of proof on the Secretary of State. As well as being—what was the noble Lord’s expression?—a quadruple negative, the amendment means that if a person fails to take part in their scheme, they would not, as currently envisaged in the Bill, have to show that they had good cause for doing so. They would simply be able to sit back and leave the Secretary of State to prove that lack of suitable childcare was not the cause. It is difficult to prove a negative. I fear that the noble Baroness would risk rendering a scheme potentially unworkable. It is much more straightforward for the parents to point to a lack of childcare as their good cause. Reversing the burden of proof like this risks tying logic in knots. I accept that this is a useful peg on which to hang a detailed discussion on childcare provision if, indeed, another lengthy one is still required. However, I remain of the view that this is, when put in practice, an action plan issue.