| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The ability to waive some areas of the entitlement conditions will allow us to take some of these things into account and ensure that the “work for your benefit” programme is not hamstrung by bureaucracy. We would not want to create a situation where a claimant was not able to meet their conditions of entitlement because of something we required them to do. That would be not only absurd, but also deeply unfair. The amendment would remove our ability to make these easements and could result in just such a situation. I can reassure noble Lords that we do not intend to remove all requirements to look for work or to take up employment, which would clearly be counterproductive. This provision is not about excluding people from “work for your benefit”; it is just easing the other job-seeking conditions.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for that comment. The period of six months has been mentioned several times by the Minister. What happens at the end of the six months? Should this not be a continuing operation?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: One hopes that at the end of six months an individual would be able to reach and sustain employment. If not, they would return to
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC85
Lord Skelmersdale: It is a little vague to say an “earlier stage” in the process. Does that mean that they go back to stage 1, with the initial interview and all the rest of it, and the personal adviser suggests—and it is agreed—that they try some other form of moving him or her closer to the labour market? Or is there a later stage to which they go back?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Let me see if I can provide the noble Lord with a little more detail. If the individual goes back to Jobcentre Plus, they would go back to stage 3 of the process. There are three stages; the first three months is a self-managed job search, the next three months is a directed job search, and six months after that there is a supported job search. It is stage 3, the supported job search, to which people would go back. That regime involves a range of things, including the jobseeker’s agreement being reviewed, mandatory referral to skills support for jobseekers who have extra barriers to work, six weeks of weekly signing, and then back to fortnightly signing. Alternatively, they may go back to the Flexible New Deal programme involving external providers. I hope that that puts more flesh on the bones.
Lord Skelmersdale: Ah ha! A successful pinning down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: This amendment removes lines 13 and 14 on page 2, which correspond precisely with new Section 17A(5)(c). That allows regulations to be made which suspend,
- “any jobseeker’s agreement to which a person is a party for any period during which the person is a participant”.
I should like an explanation of this if the Minister can provide it. If the jobseeker’s agreement is suspended, what happens to the jobseeker? I am not talking about going back at the end of the six months to the beginning of stage 3, but a rather different situation. Is he now unemployed again, or is he deemed still to be in his agreement, pending reinstatement? How will this be recorded? Will this conveniently keep him off the unemployment figures, and what is expected to happen during the suspension? What efforts will be made to keep the participant engaged, which after all is what the whole of this clause is about?
Once again we are coming up against the problem of the Bill appearing to be quite innocuous, but the devil, which of course is in the detail, is nowhere to be found. I would have a clearer understanding of this
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC86
7.15 pm
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, and indeed for the series of amendments. If it can help to clarify things for the record, it is time well spent. However, the amendment would remove our ability to suspend a jobseeker’s agreement while a jobseeker takes part in “work for your benefit”, which could have a number of peculiar consequences. As noble Lords may know, complying with a jobseeker’s agreement is part of the entitlement conditions for jobseeker’s allowance: that is, if you fail to comply with it, you will no longer be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance.
The jobseeker’s agreement contains not only information on the kind of work that a jobseeker should look for and the hours for which they must be available for work but information on the steps that they must take to get back into work. These can be small steps such as searching the internet every week, or larger ones such as attending the jobcentre daily to look through vacancies. However, given that the “work for your benefit” programme is full-time, it may be unreasonable or actually impossible for jobseekers to undertake these steps in addition to the “work for your benefit” programme.
Indeed, it would be perverse of us to penalise customers for not complying with their jobseeker’s agreement when they cannot comply simply because they are participating in a mandatory employment programme. Therefore, we may in some circumstances wish to suspend the jobseeker’s agreement to avoid this. It does not mean that we will not expect jobseekers to continue to search for work. That is a fundamental part of the “work for your benefit” programme. Nor does it mean that we will not take account of any restrictions in the jobseeker’s agreement on the types of work or availability that have been agreed with Jobcentre Plus. We will honour those agreements, which will be carried into the “work for your benefit” programme.
I hope that that explains to the noble Lord why we need that provision. To be absolutely clear, its suspension would not affect the claimant or ILO unemployment data. It is nothing to do with seeking to manage the statistics, which never enters our head.
Lord Skelmersdale: Managing the statistics was only one of my questions but, given the lateness of the hour, perhaps we had better let it go at that.
The problem with finding an amendment on which to hang a hook for a particular lot of questions is that the Minister falls into the temptation every time of explaining what it would mean if the particular word that I have singled out in the amendment was left out of the Bill. That has nothing to do with this case at all. That is bad luck. I want to know why the word is there.
I did not hear the Minister respond to my question about what will happen during the suspension. I may have missed that answer. If I have, I will get it from Hansard tomorrow.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC87
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I probably did not deal specifically with that. It depends on someone’s journey into the “work for your benefit” regime, but that will be provided by an external provider, so there will be a point at which the individual moves from a Flexible New Deal programme to the external provider. That will be the relationship. It will be the external provider’s role to work with the individual to organise the “work for your benefit” scheme and everything that flows from it, but the individual will still be entitled, as I said, to claim jobseeker’s allowance. They are still in the claimant count. Nothing changes there. The jobseeker’s agreement is a crucial part of the process, because compliance with that agreement is a condition of being able to claim the benefit.
Lord Skelmersdale: That, again, is extremely helpful. I assume it means the efforts that are made to keep the participant engaged and move from Jobcentre Plus to the external provider—the consultant or contractor, or whatever you like to call him. Is that right?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: With respect and to be very clear, someone could move to the external provider directly from the Flexible New Deal.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I said, that is extremely helpful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Paragraph (f) of new Section 17A(5) is very important because it will lead to the participant being sanctioned, which we know from the debate on the sanctions order on 27 April could in extreme cases lead to loss of benefit for as long as 26 weeks, as is shown by subsection (6), to which I have an amendment. But—to my mind it is a big “but”—is this not a repetition of paragraph (e)? Paragraph (e) makes it clear that the regulations will contain those matters which are, and which are not, sanctionable. That paragraph explains what constitutes “good cause” to fail,
Illness is an example that springs readily to mind and lack of available transport is another, both of which have been mentioned in Grand Committee. However, the Minister will probably be able to tell us other reasons for “good cause”.
But why is it necessary to have to paragraph (f)? What is the difference legally between whether a participant has or has not got, under paragraph (f), “good cause”, and whether the matters referred to in paragraph (e) constitute “good cause” and, therefore, by inference constitute what I might term “bad cause”. To my mind that is tautology. I hope that the Minister will be able to straighten me out. I beg to move.
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC88
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I shall do my best to straighten the noble Lord out. This amendment would, in practice, cast doubt on the Secretary of State’s power to prescribe circumstances in which a customer automatically has, or does not have, good cause for failing in their responsibility to take part in the “work for your benefit” scheme. I know that this is a probing amendment. In the area of sanctions, where a claimant could lose their benefit, it is essential that we ensure there is consistency in decision making. To do otherwise would risk unfairness and inequality. Therefore, the ability to make these regulations is essential. However, it may be helpful if I take this opportunity to set out in a little detail the principle of good cause and how we propose it will operate with regard to “work for your benefit”.
Benefit sanctions are designed to provide incentives for jobseekers to engage with the back-to-work support we offer, although there are some perfectly good reasons why claimants may not be able to meet certain requirements at particular times. In these circumstances, customers are deemed to have good cause for not complying with regulations. This is a safeguard built into the system to avoid customers being unfairly sanctioned. In “work for your benefit”, we plan to adopt the same approach to good cause as existing employment programmes. This ensures that flexibility within the system to deal with individual circumstances exists. Using secondary legislation to prescribe certain circumstances will give us the right level of consistency, but also flexibility to ensure each customer’s case is considered on its merits. In “work for your benefit”, as with other employment programmes, Jobcentre Plus decision-makers will always assess all available evidence when making good-cause decisions.
I trust that that gives the detail the noble Lord seeks on why we need that provision. The noble Lord was particularly probing the difference between paragraphs (e) and (f). Paragraph (e) refers to,
and paragraph (f) refers to “prescribing circumstances”. The difference is that “matters” relates to the extraneous events that affect the ability to take part. We see “circumstances” as being more personal to the claimant—for example, their health. This distinction is found elsewhere in social security legislation. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord on why we need each of those provisions.
Lord Northbourne: I do not want to delay the Committee, but I should like to confirm that it will be, I hope, appropriate at later stages in the Bill to raise further questions about good cause.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I think we have some more detailed amendments around that. I am sure that there will be that opportunity.
Lord Skelmersdale: The fact that a particular way of expressing the law occurs in other social security legislation is often taken by Ministers as a good reason not to change it, but life moves on. Goodness knows, life in Parliament moves on, as we have seen over the
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC89
9 Jun 2009 : Column GC90
Lord Tunnicliffe: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn till Thursday at 2 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday at 2 pm.
Committee adjourned at 7.25 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |