The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Tony
McNulty): I, too, look forward to working under your
chairmanship, Mr. Hood, and that of Mr.
Amess. I
am afraid that the hon. Member for Rochdale was offering a counsel of
despair, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere implied. We are making
legislation for the future, not for the immediate downturn. However, I
would say that even in the period of economic downturn, there is more
than sufficient evidence, research and academic work to suggest that it
must be right to try to keep all individuals as close to the labour
market as possible, if not to get them formally back into work. To
suggest right at the start of our deliberations that it might be too
difficult to help such individuals because of the current economic
climate is an utter counsel of despair with which I do not agree at
all. I do not think that such a suggestion is appropriate.
Notwithstanding
other amendments that we will consider, the hon. Member for Rochdale
did not set out an alternative, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere
implied, and the proposal in the amendment would become worse than was
suggested. As hon. Members will know, we have a policy on the stocks to
raise the school leaving age under law to 18. The hon. Member for
Rochdale is thus saying that no parent, of any
description—single or plural—of a child up to the age of
18 would have to comply with the conditionality regime at all. That
must be a nonsense in any circumstances, but it also makes a nonsense
of the help and support that the state should provide parents, lone
parents and couples in those circumstances. We have—this guides
the entire Bill—a fundamental duty to keep as many people as we
can as close to the labour market as possible, if not in it. If the
Liberals wish to demur from that, it is entirely a matter for them, but
it is a sorry day if that is really what they are suggesting.
This is not, I
hasten to add, Workfare. Workfare, by definition—at its most
crude—is a largely punitive program of work aimed at dissuading
claimants from continuing their claim in the first place. To suggest,
as other commentators have done—the hon. Gentleman is not
original in this regard—that this is Workfare of the most
punitive kind is not correct. “Work for your benefit”
will consist of full-time work experience that is backed up by
additional employment support designed to give the long-term unemployed
the best chance of taking work in the open labour market. As far as I
am aware, that compares with no proposal from the Liberal Democrats,
which is a shame. We think it is absolutely right that, as the duration
of a claim increases, claimants are expected to do more to help
themselves back to work. There is nothing shameful or underhand about
this. It is a proper balance of rights and responsibilities, and we
would argue that that is in the interest of the individuals
concerned. We
have said throughout—from the Green Paper onwards—that,
given that this is not Workfare, we will not insist on, in any way,
shape or form, lone parents taking any old job regardless of any
significant barriers that may remain to securing employment. There are
safeguards to prevent customers from being sanctioned if a lack of
appropriate child care prevents them from participating in “work
for your benefit”. It is important that parents who claim JSA
understand their responsibility to make reasonable efforts to find
appropriate, affordable child care, but we want to get to a
personalised system. Each and every one of the assorted barriers that
an individual might face will be taken into account when looking at
their progression through the back-to-work programme. That addresses
points raised in subsequent
amendments. I
take cognisance of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Glasgow, North-West that things are not as they should be in Scotland.
There is no UK-wide equivalent of the Childcare Act 2006, which puts a
new duty on local authorities in England and Wales to secure, as far as
is practical, sufficient child care to meet the needs of working
parents. I might need to mull over my hon. Friend’s proposal in
due course, and I ask him not to press it to a Division on the promise
that, after reflection, I will come back to it on Report. As we see
elsewhere in the Bill, when there is this interface between devolved
matters and UK matters, we are trying to accommodate the devolved
Administrations. I take much of what he said to heart and I promise to
pursue the matter
further. On
the substance of the amendment, we think that it has been drawn
wrongly, with drafting technicalities that would render it rather too
broad. I am assured by lawyers who know such things far better than
I—I wake up every day happy that I am not a lawyer—that
those who are not parents could conceivably object to going on to a
conditionality regime because affordable and practicable child care did
not exist for parents. The effect of the amendment could be far wider
than anticipated if those without children were able to claim that they
should not participate in “work for your benefit” because
appropriate child care was not available. I know that that sounds daft,
and I know that it is not the thrust of what my hon. Friend wants to
achieve, but nonetheless I am assured that the effect could be that
wide.
We take
domestic violence very seriously but, again, amendment 62, although
perhaps tabled with the right intentions, does not come anywhere near
to achieving its aim. Let us be clear: immigration rule
289A—those rules and regulations are dear to my heart in some
ways—is quite rightly about there being a pathway to indefinite
leave to remain for people caught in circumstances of domestic violence
that have led to the irrevocable breakdown of a relationship. That is
thus an appropriate pathway into ILR. We would argue that once an
individual has established indefinite leave to remain, it is right and
proper for that individual to be afforded the same treatment as
everybody else. That does not mean ignoring the domestic violence
background, but that will be part of the personalised service under
conditionality. Despite raising a very important issue, amendment 62
either does not achieve what it seeks to, or, as the hon. Member for
Hertsmere suggested, is irrelevant or superfluous, because the issue is
already covered in the broader policy and the
legislation. To
start as I mean to go on, we reject amendments 40 and 62. I ask my hon.
Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West not to press amendment 65 to
a Division on the grounds that it concerns an important issue that I
shall consider in more detail, and on which I shall get back to the
House on
Report. 11
am
Paul
Rowen: I accept that amendment 40 was badly drafted and
that it should have referred to children of single parents. However, on
amendment 62, which deals with the important matter of domestic
violence, I do not believe that the Minister gave us an adequate
explanation. Far too much of the Bill is left to further regulations,
so I would like to press amendment 62 to a Division. However, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw amendment
40. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Clappison: I beg to move amendment 3, in
clause 1, page 2, line 19, leave
out paragraphs (e) and
(f).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 88, in clause 2, page 5, line 20, after
‘failure’, insert
‘, including demonstrating that the
failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health
problem,’. Amendment
89, in
clause 2, page 5, line 26, at
end insert ‘which must
include that person’s health at the time of their failure to
comply.’. Amendment
77, in
schedule 3, page 81, line 39, after
‘requirement’, insert
‘which must include the
person’s health at the time of the failure to
comply.’.
Mr.
Clappison: We now come to amendment 3, which is designed
to elicit more details from the Government. The relevant paragraphs
concern good cause in relation to sanctions for failure to comply with
regulations under the “work for your benefit”
scheme.
We would like
to hear more detail about that. Will the Minister provide some examples
of the principles that animate that particular provision? Will he also
give some practical examples of what might amount to good
cause? As matters stand we are not seeking to oppose this, but we want
more details; at the moment the Bill is fairly broad regarding the
subject. Amendment 88
is a Scottish nationalist amendment from the hon. Member for Glasgow,
East. It covers an important point about whether fluctuating mental
health problems should, in effect, amount to good cause of failure to
comply with work-related activities. That would seem a reasonable point
to consider. We will be interested to hear the Minister’s
comments about how that would fit in with the Government’s ideas
on good cause—one would imagine that they will have given that
matter some thought already.
Amendment 89
prescribes a person’s general health as a matter to be taken
into account in determining whether or not that person has good cause
for failing to comply with requirements. Again, one imagines that the
Government will have something to say about the issue in their view of
good cause.
Amendment 77,
which is tabled in the name of the Conservative party, makes the same
point about general health amounting to good cause, but within the case
of failure to comply with requirements where the claimant is dependent
on drugs. That is a general subject to which we will return, but we
would like to hear the Minister’s views at this stage as to
whether in this case general health problems might amount to a good
cause for failure to comply with requirements. Again, we simply want to
elicit information from the Government on that; it is a reasonable
point to consider.
John
Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): Thank you, Mr.
Hood, for your patience as I learn how these Committees work.
I refer,
briefly, to amendments 88 and 89. We would like to see the issue of
health clarified because the words “good cause” seem
quite vague. Perhaps I should say, first, that I have reservations
about the whole direction of the Bill; it seems that there are a lot of
sticks and not very many carrots. The statement was made earlier that
no one should get something for nothing; but when we are dealing with
children and people with disabilities and poor health and so on, yes,
we as a society have a duty to provide something for nothing.
We have a
slight fear that the Bill has been geared toward England, and Scotland
has been a bit of an afterthought, but I am reassured by the
Minister’s earlier statements that he will look at the Scottish
situation. I also confirm that I agree that work is a good thing, as
the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, and that children who grow up in a
family where work is part of the routine have a big advantage: it will
help them move into work themselves. So we are positive about helping
people get into work. But when it comes to the idea of a personalised
system, which affects health and other issues as well, many Members
across the House wonder whether Jobcentre Plus can really be as
personal as the Minister hopes it can be. I would certainly hope it
could be, but my experience of dealing with bureaucracies and bodies
like Jobcentre Plus is that it is very difficult to personalise their
services.
Sometimes
there is an assumption that a person’s health, whether physical
or mental, is constant. The
reality is that the health of people with fluctuating health conditions
does vary. I am interested to hear how the Minister thinks we might
deal with that. Meg
Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): I want to raise a
brief point on these amendments, and specifically to speak against
amendment 3. My concern relates to people with learning disabilities,
and I would like some reassurance from the Minister that regulations
will specifically address how this new proposal will impact on such
people. It is likely that there will be a number of people with
learning disabilities on JSA—an increasing number are coming on
to JSA—and they are likely to be people at the milder end of the
spectrum. So I would like an assurance that regulations will address
that and ensure that, in relation to these specific issues, people with
learning disabilities will be taken into account. It is enormously
important that they are given equal access to the opportunities that
the Bill presents.
Paul
Rowen: The Minister might be able to help the Committee
with this clause. We are dealing with a conditionality
aspect—the withdrawal of benefit if a person does not comply.
What we do not have in front of us are the detailed regulations that
will be used to apply that conditionality. Mind, along with many other
organisations, has concerns, which are reflected in these amendments,
about how that conditionality might be applied.
In previous
Bills that I have been involved with, the most recent of which became
the Pensions Act 2008, the Minister gave an assurance during the
Bills’ passage that those regulations would be made available as
and when they were produced by the Department. That would address some
of the real fears and concerns that Members have about people who have
fluctuating mental illnesses that prevent them from attending an
interview when they are summoned. If we could see from the regulations
that there is scope for that to be taken account of, or that there is a
mechanism that can be applied, I am sure that many Members would feel a
lot happier.
Will the
Minister therefore give us an assurance that we can see the regulations
at the earliest possible opportunity? That would allay some of the
quite reasonable fears about how this sanction would be
applied.
Mr.
McNulty: On the broader point about regulations, allegedly
in this room or certainly close to it there is a rather
thick—for which I apologise—compendium, as promised, of
where there will be regulations or a regulation-making power throughout
the Bill. Where possible, the compendium contains at least the outline
of what those regulations will include. I do not doubt that it will
find its way to a pile, either close to members of the Committee or
otherwise, at some stage this morning. I apologise that it is tedious
and very detailed, but the Committee will know that it is one of those
areas of legislation—not dissimilar to immigration—where
there is a massive pile of regulation and rules alongside primary
legislation. That is not new—it is just the way that things have
developed, probably since the early ’70s and before.
In terms of
the perfectly reasonable debate earlier—I always get this in at
some stage during our Committees—the Committee should be aware
that we should not suffer
from undue specificity. If we put something on the face of the Bill that
looks in the first instance as though it blocks off an option or is
trying to put a principle on the face of the Bill, that can in many
circumstances, rather erroneously and unintentionally, preclude a whole
series of other things from being included, because of the undue
specificity. That is why we have regulations alongside to explore
things much more fully. Therefore, to
be perfectly frank, I do not understand amendment 3, which seeks to
simply take away the regulation-making power, does not put anything in
its place, and says that we cannot prescribe what we mean in terms of
matters and circumstances and good
cause.
| 
