| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
However, the alternative is to write them off, as my noble friend said. That is also unacceptable. I suggest, and I hope, that this would come home clearly if we could see what some of the progress-to-work patterns would look like, because at the end of progress-to-work I am quite sure that there will be a minority—I hope a tiny minority—who will never engage, as we would understand it, in the wage labour market. The process of engagement, possibly by doing some voluntary work, by being encouraged to settle and sort out their housing situation, and by getting some of their debt under control, means that none the less they will be better parents and that they and the child will enjoy a better quality of life, and a richer one, even if the final outcome is not what we would want. We may have to accept that for all sorts of reasons, including poor mental health, some people may remain a long way from the labour market. Investment in them and their personal skills will surely have repercussions over and beyond a narrower version of a cost-benefit analysis of a return to work.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I shall pick up one or two points. I want to be clear about the definition of “work for your benefit”. They are people who are work-ready, but as my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, “work-ready” might mean they still have quite a long way to go. We probably need to distinguish them from people who have limited capability for work and who would access employment and support allowance where progression-to-work might apply but not “work for your benefit”.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that we cannot have an off-the-peg solution for everyone. That is absolutely right, but there is a distinction between having a programme that might apply to several people and ensuring that the support is specifically focused on an individual’s needs rather than analysing the needs of that individual and always tailoring a specific programme to meet those needs. I do not think that is necessarily required. That is the distinction we are trying to reach.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for their support, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Afshar and Lady Howe. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor—very aptly named—was fairly supportive. This point relates only to “work for your benefit”. I must warn the Committee that I have another amendment that is exactly the same; it is about claimants of ESA and income support and partners of claimants of those on JSA and ESA. I was thinking of someone who is a vegetarian being asked to shadow in an abattoir. Such problems have happened. That is a favourite example of my late friend Earl Russell.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The incident which the noble Baroness has just identified would not happen because that would be good cause for someone not to have to work in that environment.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I am very glad to hear it. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, made a good point about the cultural problem. I wonder
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC78
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope matters will get simpler now and we shall move forward a bit faster. I have five small, probing amendments. As the Minister will remember me saying, and as is my wont, if I do not understand the Bill, how on earth will we get to Report stage with any degree of alacrity?
The amendment is the first of many, but it has a double purpose, one of which is to do something which the Minister is sometimes resistant to: that is, being pinned down, as he explained in an outburst half an hour or so ago. New Section 17A(2) to the Jobseekers Act 1995 is the second of 387 references to regulations in the Bill. The purpose of these regulations is to require participants to undertake certain activities in order to improve their prospects of getting a job. That covers an initial interview, at which it is decided what would comprise the steps needed to meet that objective.
6.45 pm
My second amendment would require the lone parent to undertake certain activities to improve their prospects of getting a job. This would cover an initial interview at which it was decided what would comprise the steps that were needed. This amendment to line 16 of page 1 seeks to discover exactly why and where work comes into the whole scheme of things. I understand that it is absolutely essential to have this progression and the work-related activity to get there, but surely work in itself is work-related. Therefore, why do we need the word “work” in this subsection?
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: We agree that blurring work and work-related activity is very confusing. I think this was the noble Lord’s point. “Work for your benefit” is a tough slogan, whereas “work-related activity for your benefit” does not work nearly so well. If this is what is meant, we should know this. In the Peers’ information pack about the Bill, we see the sentence:
“Customers will be required to take part in full-time activity for up to 6 months”.
Full-time activity is a new phrase. It would be nice to know what it means.
It might be the right time to bring up another matter. Will the Minister answer a question that I asked at Second Reading? Will he say whether a claimant could be required to work full-time for six months at the JSA rate? I did not receive an answer from him at that point, but it would be useful to know whether that could happen or was very unlikely to
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC79
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Clause 1 is specifically about making provision for “work for your benefit”. “Work for your benefit” will be a significant increase in the support that we offer and the activity that we require long-term jobseekers to undertake; namely, up to six months of full-time work experience. This clause is designed to ensure that there is no doubt about our ability to require this of jobseekers.
The amendment would, on the other hand, leave considerable room for misunderstanding about the scope of the powers in this clause: for example, whether full-time work experience is actually work-related activity or work. That kind of ambiguity cannot be good for anyone. It is certainly not good for what we seek to achieve here. However, given the nervousness about the use of “work”, it might be useful to put on the record exactly what we intend for “work for your benefit”. I hope that this will offer some reassurance.
Participants will be expected to do full-time work experience—that is, up to 30 hours a week—but it could be less if the claimant has caring responsibilities, for example. This will be backed up with up to 10 additional hours per week of wider employment support to help claimants to capitalise on the experiences that they are gaining. The work experience will not be one-size-fits-all. Placements will be sourced by providers on an individual basis based on the needs of the claimant and we will expect providers to support claimants in those placements. We will not specify what type of work experience the claimant must do, nor will it need to be in any particular sector. It will depend entirely on the aspirations of the claimant and their barriers to work. This does not provide any easy answers when people ask what type of work people will be doing, but it is entirely the right approach.
In this clause we could specify to our hearts content what we expect of participants, but in the end it would do nothing more than restrict the innovation and creativity of providers and guarantee that someone, somewhere would be unable to do the kind of work experience they need to. I hope that this gives some reassurance that there is no need for this amendment. In using the word “work”, the text is intended to make clear that participants will be required to undertake work-related activity that is different or more intensive from that in which they have previously participated; namely, full-time work experience over a period of up to six months.
The Countess of Mar: The Minister referred to full-time work experience and then mentioned 30 hours. My understanding of full time is something like a 38-hour week.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC80
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The proposal is for 40 hours per week, but up to 10 hours of that would involve work experience, work support or perhaps jobseeking activity. It would not all have to be work experience in terms of a placement at a particular operation. As I mentioned earlier, if someone has a jobseeker’s agreement under which they have restricted hours during which they can look or be available for work, those restricted hours will carry over in the “work for your benefit” provisions.
The Countess of Mar: I am sorry, but I am still confused. If a person is doing 30 hours of full-time work why does he need to do 10 hours of work experience?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The work experience part is intended to be 30 hours. One of the big differences between how the programme is applied in the US and what we envisage here is that the work experience needs to be accompanied by support for actively seeking employment and employment support along the way. It is not at all about dumping someone on an employer and not having these other components. Research from international programmes has shown that if you do not have those other components, you are much less likely to be successful. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Countess. So it is 30 hours work experience plus 10 hours for job search. I hope that that has helped the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think so. I apologise for the inadequate way in which I moved the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for helping me out and pursuing my questions. I will have to read carefully what the Minister has said, but in the words almost of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I think I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that this amendment will take a little longer. My second amendment covers the situation in new subsection (3) where someone is not already in work. At least, that is what it seems to me. This prompts a simple question for the Minister: what are the words “or remain in” doing here? How can work-related activity be carried out at the same time as someone is working? I take the point that the Minister has just made about the split between the 30 hours and 10 hours in his illustration. None the less, I am not quite clear how this works. Why should it be necessary for this to be provided for, unless the word “work” covers part-time employment and work-related activity is intended to help the individual into full-time
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC81
Some time ago, I received some correspondence that caused me to ponder the subject of part-time work vis-Ã -vis the Bill. A letter I received is particularly telling and went something like this:
“I have obsessive-compulsive disorder in the form of a washing obsession. This is a disorder that affects one in 100 people and is listed among the 10 most debilitating illnesses in terms of loss of income by the World Health Organisation.
I have an illness which means that I cannot work nine to five. I am unable to work set hours and days every week, even part time. I tried and failed. My only option is to find freelance work that allows me to fit work around my washing and other obsessions.
However, the Government’s reforms involve rolling out a programme called Pathways to Work, a programme that, in practice, regardless of what they say, is only for people who can work a set amount of hours per week on a permanent basis. I have already been sent on this programme and turned away because my illness does not fit this box.
There is no help and no advice available at my Jobcentre Plus for people looking to do freelance work. There is literally zero advice available on the topic or support for coming off benefits while attempting to do freelance work. The Government says that you can get the support and advice from Pathways, but I have found that this is not the case in practice. They are paid for each person they get into employment, and as it would take several months of quite intensive support to help me, it is not worth their while, I suppose.
In addition, permitted working hours/amounts make it impossible to try to get freelance work. They state you can’t earn more than £20 a week. Actually, it took over a year to discover it’s possible to average out weekly earnings over a period of time, but nobody volunteers this information or supports you to do this work. The permitted work earnings of £92 a week do not apply unless you are doing that every week for 52 weeks, which I wouldn’t be because I would have to be finding and building up work slowly. However, if I did briefly go over the £20 limit, I would automatically fall into the £92 a week group, and so, after 52 weeks, be forced to give up all benefits or give up work.
Supported permitted work rules (that also allow £92 a week) don’t apply either because my mental health team don’t want me to do paid work, only voluntary work, and won’t support me to do freelance work. The rules don’t seem to apply to freelance work, and you have little say in recovery”.
What a horrendous tale of bad operation in Pathways to Work from a person who is trying desperately to get into work through the part-time or freelance avenue and does not appear to be allowed to do so at the moment. What do the Government intend to do within the context of the Bill to help people like this? I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I listened to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is difficult to respond in detail without having the chance to review the facts, but I am happy to take the specifics back to the department. From what he said, it seems that the Pathways to Work programme was involved. It is part of the employment and support allowance for incapacity benefit, not part of the JSA route, and therefore Clause 1 provisions about “work for your benefit” would not apply in those circumstances. Clause 1 is before us and is the subject of the amendment. Whether the individual is correctly based on ESA or not depends, as we have discussed on the Welfare Reform Bill, on the work capability assessment and
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC82
The amendment would remove an important aspect of the definition of work-related activity as it applies in Clause 1. As currently drafted, work-related activity can mean activity that is designed to get people back to work, but also activity that is designed to improve someone's overall employability. It could, for example, be activity that would bring someone closer to the labour market or improve their chances of retaining employment over the longer term. It could also mean activity designed to allow someone to progress in work when they have found a job. The effects may not be immediate.
“Work for your benefit” in particular is primarily about work experience, the positive effects of which will grow with time. For example, we expect that “work for your benefit” will allow customers to develop work habits, experience routine and gain knowledge of work environments in ways in which they may not have done for some time, if ever. All of those things may be appropriate for any given claimant at different times. The amendment would therefore restrict the range of support that we may require a claimant to participate in and that is something we resist.
The definition of work-related activity used in Clause 1 is the same as we are currently using in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and as we use in Clause 2 of the Bill. Accepting the amendment would result in a number of different definitions being used in legislation, which can only confuse the matter. I hope that, with the offer of help on the specific case raised by the noble Lord, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 pm
Lord Rix: I wish to clarify a point. The letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred, was also sent to me as president of Mencap, which shows yet again the problems that arise in the differentiation between mental health and learning disability. The person who wrote that letter was not clear on that particular point. I took a more practical position with regard to the letter. I referred her to Mind, which should be able to do battle on her part.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. Yet again, if there is any way that we can help, together with Mind, I am happy to do that. We are working with Mind on some pilots that we are developing around the issues of mental health and employment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for pointing out the error of my ways. None the less, in your Lordships' House the right mode of attack for most of us is to send such letters to the Minister and that is what I intend to do. What I quoted from was a précis of a précis of the original letter sent by our joint correspondent. However, I was not so much using it to illustrate the inadequacy of the
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC83
Lord McKenzie of Luton: If we are looking at the “work for your benefit” provisions, I will just recap. They are intended to apply when someone has been away from the labour market for a long time. Typically, in relation to Flexible New Deal, it would be someone who has been through the first year of the Jobcentre Plus stages and then had a year with the New Deal and has still not accessed employment. Those are particularly the people we are seeking to support with this arrangement. However, we are trying to focus this on 40 hours per week, some of which will be work experience and some of which could be a job search and other employment support. An individual who was on JSA prior to entering this programme may, under their job seeker’s agreement, have restricted hours when they have to be available and that would carry through, so a part-time engagement could be what “work for your benefit” produces for them.
The Countess of Mar: Does the phrase “or be able to do so” apply to someone who is trained and ready for work but for whom there is no job, like the over-50s who I have talked about?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: It is more specifically to ensure that we cover people who are now involved in work experience which may not immediately move them into employment. This will enable them to sustain employment in the longer term. That is why there are two bits to the description.
The Countess of Mar: Does that not make those words extraneous? The previous words read,
If he is doing the activity to obtain or remain in work, why do we need “or be able to do so”?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: We are looking at the short term and the longer term. The words “or be able to do so” are meant to ensure that we can cover those situations when someone may be a little further away from getting employment. It comes back to the nature of the legislation. It is a framework but we need to ensure that the sorts of regulations which we would want to develop are going to be as supportive as we want for people. We need to ensure that the legislative framework for that is clear. That phrase is there for that reason.
Lord Skelmersdale: This has become a rather semantic debate. Clearly, the Minister is absolutely definite that he does not want to throw the baby out with the bath water and this particular phrase is the bath water. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC84
Lord Skelmersdale: It is clear from new subsection (5)(a) that the personal adviser needs to notify the participant of the need to undertake work-related activity. I assume that that will take place at the original interview when the sort of work-related activity will be proposed and, in theory, at least, be agreed. What happens if it is not agreed? A sanction can hardly operate here unless the participant is being unreasonable. It could well be that the personal adviser is promoting a quite inappropriate course of action or it might be that the personal adviser simply does not click with the participant. What does the Minister envisage happening then? Will there be an opportunity to find another personal adviser?
Irrespective of those questions, new subsection (5)(b) makes provision within the regulations for a case where a person is not—that is the important word—required to participate in a scheme. Can the Minister give us an example? The subsection goes on to say that there are occasions when the participant is not required to meet certain conditions. Again, I am not quite sure what might occasion that. I hope that the Minister can explain it to us. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: “Work for your benefit” will be a full-time programme. People may be required to do up to 40 hours of activity a week for up to six months. We think that that intensive support will be invaluable to people who are long-term unemployed but may, on occasion, make it difficult for some people to fully meet the technical requirements of entitlement to JSA. For example, jobseekers are required to be available to take up employment within 24 hours if necessary. This may be difficult if a participant has to rearrange childcare or transport arrangements.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |