The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
Mr.
Peter Atkinson †
Boswell,
Mr. Tim (Daventry)
(Con) †
Cooper,
Rosie (West Lancashire)
(Lab) Dunne,
Mr. Philip (Ludlow)
(Con) †
Ennis,
Jeff (Barnsley, East and Mexborough)
(Lab) †
Flello,
Mr. Robert (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab) †
Flynn,
Paul (Newport, West)
(Lab) †
Jackson,
Glenda (Hampstead and Highgate)
(Lab) †
Kennedy,
Jane (Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab) Laws,
Mr. David (Yeovil)
(LD) †
Lloyd,
Tony (Manchester, Central)
(Lab) Maples,
Mr. John (Stratford-on-Avon)
(Con) †
Mulholland,
Greg (Leeds, North-West)
(LD) †
Plaskitt,
Mr. James (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions)†
Prentice,
Mr. Gordon (Pendle)
(Lab) †
Pritchard,
Mark (The Wrekin)
(Con) Watkinson,
Angela (Upminster)
(Con) †
Watts,
Mr. Dave (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)Celia Blacklock,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee Second
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationTuesday 23
May
2006[Mr.
Peter Atkinson in the
Chair]Draft Social Security (Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance) Amendment Regulations 200610.30
am The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James
Plaskitt): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Income Support and
Jobseeker’s Allowance) Amendment Regulations
2006. Hon. Members may
be aware that it is a condition of entitlement to jobseeker’s
allowance that customers have to be available for and actively seeking
work. However, a number of exceptions within the jobseeker’s
allowance regulations protect jobseeker’s entitlement when, for
good reasons, they cannot meet those conditions. These regulations
introduce three further exceptions to the actively seeking and
availability work
rules. First, the
regulations provide that jobseekers required to attend court or a
tribunal will remain entitled to jobseeker’s allowance for up to
eight weeks. Secondly, jobseekers who have been temporarily detained in
police custody for 96 hours or less and then released will retain their
entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance. Thirdly, jobseekers with
caring responsibilities will have up to 48 hours to attend a job
interview and up to one week to take up an offer of
employment.
Currently, when jobseekers are
required to attend court or a tribunal for longer than one day, they go
through a complex process to maintain their existing level of financial
support. As they are not available for work during the time in court,
their jobseeker’s allowance claim is closed down. They then have
the option of claiming income support or claiming for the loss of
income through the Court Service. When they are no longer required in
court, they need to reclaim jobseeker’s allowance. That process
is not straightforward and payment is often delayed. It creates
additional financial hardship to those already on limited income. It
often leads jobseekers to exercise the right to be excused from jury
service on the grounds of severe financial
hardship. The first
objective of the regulations is to help stop any financial hardship for
jobseekers required to attend court or a tribunal, by treating them as
available and actively seeking employment. Although the Court Service
advised that more than 99 per cent. of court cases last for less than
two weeks, we have extended the period that jobseekers can be excused
to eight weeks. That is in line with the maximum period we allow other
jobseekers in special circumstances. It will mean that jobseekers
called for jury service can undertake that duty without being
financially penalised by losing
benefit or facing delays in payment. It will also reduce administrative
costs as the jobseekers will no longer be forced to swap between
benefits. As with
those who are required to attend court or tribunal proceedings,
jobseekers who have been temporarily detained by the police are not
available for or able to seek work during the time that they are
detained. Under current regulations, jobseekers detained by the police
for one or two days could lose their benefit for up to two weeks.
Following a recommendation from the Court of Appeal, we have decided
that those who are temporarily detained by the police and subsequently
released should not lose jobseeker’s
allowance. The Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for a maximum period of
detention of 96 hours before a person has to be released or charged.
Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, a person can be
detained in custody for a shorter period before having to be released
or charged. The regulations will therefore allow those who have been
temporarily detained by the police for up to 96 hours and then released
to be treated as available and actively seeking work during their
period of detention. The provision will only apply to those who are in
custody for 96 hours or less and then released. Jobseeker’s
allowance will not be available for anyone detained by the police for
more than 96
hours. The third
objective of the regulations is to provide jobseekers with caring
responsibilities sufficient time to make alternative care arrangements
before attending an interview or taking up an offer of employment. To
receive the benefit, jobseekers must normally be available immediately
to attend an interview or take up employment. However, we recognise
that for some groups that may not be possible. That recognition is
reflected in legislation, which allows volunteers 48 hours to attend an
interview and one week’s notice to take up a job offer.
Currently, those with caring responsibilities have to be available for
an interview immediately and take up the offer of a job
within48 hours.
We are responding positively to
Equal Opportunities Commission recommendations to provide jobseekers
who have caring responsibilities with a longer period in which to make
themselves available to attend an interview or to take up an offer of
employment. The regulations will extend to 48 hours the time available
for carers to attend a job interview, and to one week the time
available to take up a job offer. By increasing the amount of time
jobseekers have to make alternative care arrangements, we will make
jobseeker’s allowance more accessible to people with caring
responsibilities. It should be especially beneficial to lone parents
and those who do not have access to formal child care, giving them the
option of claiming jobseeker’s allowance and enabling them to
keep in touch with the labour market.
I hope that
hon. Members agree that the regulatory changes are worth while. The
changes support the Government’s promise of “work for
those who can and support for those who cannot”, by ensuring
that in the future, those receiving jobseeker’s allowance are
not disadvantaged due to circumstances beyond their control. I am also
satisfied that the statutory instrument is compatible
with the European convention on human rights. I commend the regulations
to the Committee. 10.37
am
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Atkinson. I have always found your chairmanship to be a pleasant
experience, even if on certain occasions our business has been more
contentious than the regulations. I am thinking of the National Minimum
Wage Act 1998, but we will not return to that.
It was a pleasure to listen to
the Minister’s clear explanation, and I have signalled to the
Committee that the regulations are not a matter for trench warfare
between parties. They embody sensible changes that have our general
support, subject to the inevitable points on which we wish the Minister
to elucidate. Our
general approach is to recognise the problems that people, including
jobseekers, have in their normal life, and the entirely sensible wish
that they are not excluded from the courts system as jurors in the way
that Members of Parliament are no longer specially excluded from the
process. We should not put unnecessary hurdles in their way. The
Minister certified the compatibility of the regulations with the
European convention on human rights. Had we carried on with the old
arrangements whereby, at least in the minds of those affected, people
lost their benefit, one could have argued that the Minister’s
arrangements were unreasonable, and they might have been overturned or
questioned. I do not wish to trespass on that ground,
however. We generally
welcome the approach. I particularly welcome the new provisions for
carers. They have come from the EOC stable; others have come from the
Court of Appeal. They are all well endorsed, and they have not required
call-in by the Social Security Advisory Committee, so we can assume
that we are working with a common mind. It might help if the Minister
told the Committee his expectation of the numbers involved. I realise
that the provision does not create a business cost, and that, indeed,
it is facilitative, but it would be useful to know how many people will
benefit from the regulations, and how much in administrative costs will
be saved for HM Courts Service in the way that he described.
I want to explore only two
matters. I am thinking in particular about the exemption for court
attendance, whether as a juror, witness or whatever. It is important
that the table of exceptions, which the order sensibly embodies, does
not create any unaddressed anomalies. It would help Committee members
who, unlike the Minister and his officials, are not expert on the
regulations, if he said more about the other exceptions and special
cases that might be considered. An example—genuine rather than
purely synthetic—is when people plead the need to attend a
family funeral, which may entail extensive travel either in the United
Kingdom or abroad. It would not be unreasonable to provide relief in
such cases, subject to proper conditions.
The Minister may also wish to
consider a particular difficulty in relation to police action. I
understand that the measure relates to police custody, but someone
involved in a demonstration could be prevented from
signing on on the appointed day despite not having had anything to do
with the demonstration. There have been cases in London in which people
have been swept up by the police because of the need to keep public
order. Mr.
Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab) indicated assent.
Mr.
Boswell: I notice that the hon. Gentleman nods. Such
people have been detained for a number of hours, and certainly were not
available to attend the Jobcentre Plus centre to sign on. That is a
reasonable excuse, and another anomaly should not be created.
In general, we support the
Government. Clearly, there must be rules, but we do not want to exclude
people who have been the subject of police action that stopped short of
detention; nor do we want to exclude other entirely reasonable
explanations. It may be that such cases should be within the discretion
of officers within Departments.
The rules on presumption of
innocence mercifully still apply in this country, despite occasional
efforts by the Government to challenge them. It could be argued that
those detained in custody are slightly more “culpable” or
have brought matters on themselves, but we should not make difficulties
that are unnecessary, and I broadly accept the Minister’s
proposals. As I understand them, they relate to people who were granted
an allowance and who have subsequently been involved in an incident
that requires them to be in custody, or which results in custody. They
do not deal with circumstances of discharge from custody, including
discharge from prison, which I realise is a much wider
issue. Many hon.
Members are concerned about the circumstances of discharged prisoners
who have a small allowance and who sometimes have no satisfactory
arrangements for accommodation, support or finding a job. That is a
wider consideration, which I hope the Minister has in mind. He would
assist us were he to explain that the regulations are much more
precisely targeted towards persons who get into trouble in a loose
sense while they are receiving an allowance, and who are not
permanently unavailable for work but only temporarily
so. Subject to those
general considerations, there is support for the proposed approach.
Indeed, if there were further cases in which such a measure would be
helpful, I do not think that the Opposition would oppose the Minister
introducing a similar order. There must be rules, and people must be
treated fairly, notwithstanding the fact that there are different
cases. However, as a tidying-up measure that will help to some extent,
the Opposition welcome the
regulations. 10.44
am Glenda
Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab): I welcome the
proposals. However, the subject of carers brings two constituency cases
to mind. In the first case, a mother sat with her child, who was
seriously ill in intensive care, from 7 in the morning until 6 in the
evening. She was in that situation for a great deal longer than a week.
At the other end of the age scale, in the second case, the mother of
one of my constituents came out of hospital having had a serious
operation,
and plans were set in train by the hospital and social services in the
community to adapt her flat. That took time, during which my
constituent had to be with her mother virtually 24 hours a day to
facilitate her personal and medical care. It took a great deal longer
than seven days for both individuals at either end of the age scale to
have time to sign on and make it clear that they were available to
work. Are there special, extreme circumstances that will not impact on
the carer in those
circumstances? 10.46
am Greg
Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): I add our broad
support to this clearly commonsensical and sensible measure, which not
only will clear up what we all know is too often an over-complicated
benefits system, but will involve savings to the state. I am interested
to know the projected savings. I welcome the fact that juries will have
the opportunity to be more genuinely inclusive, as recommended by Lord
Justice Auld’s review. We must not overlook that.
On care, the regulations are
sensible, although I echo the hon. Lady’s concern about whether
the time limits are adequate. The broad thrust of the discussion has
been that it might be possible to add further commonsensical and
compassionate reasons for people to be allowed to stay on
jobseeker’s allowance. Will the Minister outline situations in
which that might be the case?
I welcome the flexibility,
however; it is progressive and we would wholeheartedly welcome a
continuing review of the system to see how it can be improved,
particularly the jobseeker’s allowance
element. 10.47
am Mr.
Plaskitt: This has been a brief, but welcome debate
because, as was anticipated, the measures have broad support in the
Committee, for which I am grateful. In particular, I welcome the
comments from the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who said that
the regulations will make sensible changes. We try to make changes that
respond to real circumstances and needs.
I appreciate the point made by
the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) on jury
service. After all, that is a civic duty and if it is visited on
someone who happens to be on jobseeker’s allowance, there is no
rational reason why their receipt of benefit should be interrupted
because it would be a situation not of their own
making. Questions were
asked about the extent to which people will benefit from the measure,
and the costs involved. The numbers involved will be small, although it
is difficult to be precise. There will be some cost savings, however,
because people will no longer be switching between different benefits.
The regulations will help to stabilise the lives and finances of
individuals involved. It makes good administrative sense to operate in
such a way. I was
asked about other special exceptions that will come under the
eight-week rule. Many of those will involve caring, which was mentioned
by my hon.
Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). In
particular, if a parent needs to take a child abroad for a long time
for special medical treatment, they would be covered by the eight-week
rule and could continue their claim. Again, in certain circumstances in
which, for example, parents are caring for a child intensively in the
United Kingdom, the eight-week rule would apply and we could make that
exception. I am
grateful to her for raising those instances. We try to make the benefit
system respond to the special caring needs that can arise in such
circumstances. It would be perverse not to do
so. Glenda
Jackson: I gave one example of a mother caring for her
child in intensive care. Such incidents arise unexpectedly. They are
emergencies and the individual who is the carer is obviously
concentrating on the person who requires that care, so basic matters
such as simply telling the benefit office what has happened can
sometimes evade the individual’s memory. That can have a
deleterious effect on how such people are treated when they go back to
the benefit
office. Mr.
Plaskitt: I appreciate that. To some extent, people
working in the benefit offices have discretionary powers and,
hopefully, they will be sympathetic when responding to circumstances of
that nature which arise in a completely unforeseen way and clearly
dominate the life of the person who is dealing with them. It is easy in
such circumstances to overlook the obligations that the person might
have in respect of benefit entitlement. However, we hope that officers
will be sensitive in those
circumstances. Several
questions were asked about custody. It is important for me to stress
that as soon as a charge occurs, entitlement to the benefit ceases. I
think that that is accepted. I was asked about circumstances relating
to a family funeral. An exception exists in those circumstances,
too. As the
arrangement comes into operation, we will monitor its impact on
savings, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Daventry. I shall
be happy to report back on that. It is thought that the limits are
reasonable as jobseeker’s allowance is a benefit for those able
to work. Customers are expected to have put alternative caring
arrangements in place when possible. Additional caring benefits are
attached to caring responsibilities and, if circumstances are
appropriate, people should come forward and claim
those. I hope that I
have answered the questions. I am grateful that hon. Members have
accepted that the changes are sensible and progressive, and that they
should assist people in the circumstances that we have discussed. It
should mean that their claim for jobseeker’s allowance is not
disrupted. It is a helpful and sensible series of changes to
make. Question put
and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Income Support
and Jobseeker’s Allowance) Amendment Regulations
2006. Committee
rose at seven minutes to Eleven
o’clock.
| 
