| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Razzall: My Lords, this clause—originally Clause 49, now Clause 48—caused considerable aggravation and concern to Members on all sides of the House. I do not think that we ought to let pass the concerns expressed both on the Minister's side and from these Benches as to the effect of the provision.
I strongly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. If the Government are prepared to say that the question of sanction is removed as soon the individual to whom the provision applies has actually turned up for an interview, then a large number of the concerns expressed on all sides will be removed.
We all accept, as the Minister says, that such interviews are often very beneficial for those who take part in them. All the evidence produced by the Minister in Committee and on Report demonstrates that they are beneficial in getting back into the workplace people who might not otherwise find that possible. However, the concern on all sides relates to the next stage; namely, that if it turns out that the job is not appropriate and is not wanted by the individual, that person then loses benefit.
If the Minister indicates that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is right when she says that the potential loss of benefit should stop at the moment when the individual turns up for the work-related interview, many of our concerns will be removed. I should be grateful for that undertaking.
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, on reading the amendment I was genuinely baffled. My noble friend has long-standing experience in social security. When I joined the House and we were in opposition, she guided me through many of the traps of social security legislation. Indeed, we were busy setting traps for the then government to fall into—and occasionally we succeeded.
I am baffled because the amendment is narrower and less generous than what the Government intend and the second part of it seeks to avert that which cannot happen and is therefore redundant. I take it
that my noble friend seeks assurances from me rather than a full slogging-out of the issues behind work-focused interviews.The amendment seeks, first, to narrow the scope of the interview to a meeting about available employment and training opportunities; secondly, it seeks to avert a reduction in benefit where the partner deems the employment or training on offer to be unsuitable in the light of his or her training, background and general circumstances.
To take the first part of the amendment, the work-focused interview is designed to find out about the individual—his or her level of skills and experience—and to explore the broad range of information and support available to help them look for work should they wish to do so. The interview will also include advice about possible benefits, about best-buy packages, which our research shows are very important to lone parents trying to calculate whether they should or should not go into work. It possibly covers childcare issues and support services for a carer who would like to go into work for a short period but does not know what the resources are, and that applies to their partners as well. That is what the interview is for. It is not simply to discuss suitable jobs or training opportunities.
My noble friend's amendment would turn the interview into something much narrower and much more akin to the fortnightly intervention meeting—the sign-on interview— attended by those claiming JSA. My reading of the interview is more generous and more comprehensive than that. My noble friend is turning the interview into the very thing that she has criticised on previous occasions.
The second part of the amendment seeks to protect the benefit of the claimant and his or her partner from a reduction should the partner deem the available employment or the training on offer to be unsuitable. But as my noble friend recognises, no one will be required to accept available employment or training as a result of the interview. Regardless of whether or not it is available, all the partner has to do is to take part in the interview. If he or she does this, no question of a reduction in benefit arises. I am happy to give the assurances sought by the Liberal Democrat Benches that at the point someone comes in to be interviewed any question of sanction is then dropped. That will follow three efforts, including, if necessary, a home visit, but certainly personal contact to make sure that people understand the situation.
The push of my noble friend's amendment seems to be that a partner should be required to look for and consider suitable work or training and that, if it is available, it should be taken up; and that the only grounds on which the sanction should not apply is if the work or training is unsuitable. In that sense, the amendment goes far further that the Government think appropriate or sensible and is well beyond the scope of this provision. My noble friend seeks in the second part of the amendment to avert that which cannot happen.
I am profoundly surprised by my noble friend's amendment. If I were seeking to do what she seeks, she would surely deplore it. In the first part of the amendment, she is narrowing the supportive, wide-ranging interview effectively into a JSA sign-on, and in the second part she is assuming that people will be required to work when they will not. The first part is less generous; the second part is simply not relevant. I hope that with that response again on the record in Hansard my noble friend feels that she has the commitment that she was seeking and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. In view of what she said, my hope is that when regulations are written in respect of the Bill, as I am sure they will be, or guidance is given, this will be made absolutely clear to the officials who are charged with responsibility for applying the Bill's provisions.
My noble friend is right. I was seeking confirmation of what she has just said; namely, that there will not be pressure on people to accept work or training, or indeed any other recommendations, and that the sanction will be applied only if they fail to show up for interview; and that the possibility of a sanction will disappear as soon as the partner goes through the door of the benefit office. In the light of that, I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend uses the phrase, "goes through the door of the benefit office". It is clear that we expect the person to engage in the interview in a sensible way, not just go through the door, come out again and say, "I've signed in". But with that qualification, so that there is no misunderstanding, my noble friend is right.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of that response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen moved Amendment No. 17:
- Page 64, line 29, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. I have re-submitted these amendments because of the helpful way in which my noble friend the Minister responded to them on Report. He recognised the importance of the issue of bullying at work, about which many people are worried. As I said on Report, that was evident in the large number of people—more than 90—who attended a meeting in June at the House.
I know that the Government believe that there are problems with the definition of bullying at work but I recall that many years ago, when we first discussed racial and sexual issues involving harassment and
I do not wish to go into the arguments that I put forward at previous stages of the Bill. I do not see the point of reiterating the remarks that I made on Report and at Second Reading, when I detailed what happened to those who are bullied. I pointed out the detrimental effect it has on them and often on their families and friends. That has been well documented, as have the effects of a culture and ethos of bullying at a workplace.
On Report, the Minister signalled that between Report and today more thought would be given to the issue of bullying. I look forward to hearing any new thinking on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I support my noble friend, who spoke to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. We tabled the amendments to follow up the debate on Report on 11th June at cols. 173 to 178. The position was clarified when the Minister stated that:
For many of us, that clarification was a step forward. The question that now arises and which it would be very timely for the Minister to shed further light on, is how the matter will be made clear when the regulations are enacted. We are now at the stage of the Bill when our minds turn to the small print.
How the House will be kept up to date on the enactment of the regulations is one thing but there is a wider audience on this issue. Everyone in the employment relationship will have a wider interest, including employers and trade unions, in how they will be familiarised with the implications of this Bill. The relationship between this legislation, these codes and other procedures is a good illustration of it and one which the Minister may wish to comment on. We have made quite a step forward if the Minister confirms that our understanding of this is correct.
"( ) In the case of bullying, the appeal may be instituted by either the employee, the manager or the employer."
"Employees can raise allegations of bullying under grievance procedures",
and that,
"employers can use their disciplinary procedures against employees who are accused of bullying".—[Official Report, 11/6/02; col. 176.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page