| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC115
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC115
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC115
Thursday, 11 June 2009.
Welfare Reform Bill
Committee (2nd Day)
2 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): It seems highly unlikely but I have to remind the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, we must immediately adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 1 : Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: "work for your benefit" schemes etc.
11: Clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may prescribe that the skills and abilities of participants can be utilised in the schemes to which they may be referred.”
Baroness Turner of Camden: My reason for tabling this amendment is that I have become aware of the increasing level of unemployment in areas where manufacturing industry has, until recently, played a dominant role. I know of towns which I used to visit when I was a union official where one large firm or enterprise was dominant—everyone worked in it. When that enterprise ceased to exist, large levels of unemployment resulted, much of it among people who were highly skilled. This has increasingly become the situation in parts of the country. Often, no alternative employment is readily available and this often has a devastating effect on some of the skilled workers left without work.
It should be appreciated that people with skills, often acquired over many years, are proud of those skills. My father was a skilled engineering worker and, fortunately for my family, he was never out of work. However, nowadays many people like him face unemployment, possibly over a very long period.
I understand that the Bill is an attempt to deal with long-term unemployment, but a skilled worker is unlikely to take kindly to work-related activity involving, for example, stacking shelves in Waitrose or Tesco. Skilled people must feel that their skills and experience count for something and that attempts will be made to ensure that they are utilised. This is important for them psychologically, and it is also important for the future of our economy because such people can be used to train others. That people’s skills are utilised wherever they possibly can be is important for all sorts of reasons, including the future economy of our country, as we cannot afford to waste skills that have been acquired over a period of time. For that reason, I have tabled this amendment and I await with interest what the Minister has to say about it. I beg to move.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC116
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I do not know whether the kind of amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has just spoken to so movingly would help but we certainly support the spirit behind it. As she said, it is easy to envisage a situation where, say, a skilled engineer who had been working for 30 years but has been unemployed for two years is placed in a completely unsuitable “work for your benefit” scheme. Many younger unemployed people may not have useful skills but nowadays huge numbers will be skilled workers and it must be right for those skills to be used.
We need to know how much flexibility there will be in the “work for your benefit” schemes. As we know, they are not to be personally tailored, but does that mean that all participants will have to do the same level of job or will a skilled person—say, an electrician—be able to use those skills? I do not know what the position would be, although I am sure that it will be very easy for the Minister to answer. Furthermore, I do not know what the insurance situation would be. If, for example, an electrician worked alongside another trained electrician on some rewiring, what would happen if the man on the scheme short-circuited the whole house? For that matter, I would also be keen to know the position regarding health and safety.
Lord Rix: I support the amendment for two reasons: first, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is sitting next to me with a very large stick in front of her and, secondly, because the amendment just seems to be common sense.
The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the amendment, because it particularly brings in the over-50s, many of whom will have worked for many years in the motor industry, for example, and, as in my neck of the woods, in the carpet industry—and they have special skills. It would be a good idea if they could be mentors to younger people and pass on their skills, which take a long time to acquire. Once those are lost, they are lost for ever. I have said this about farming. You cannot learn farming overnight.
Baroness Afshar: Does the word “skills” include the skills of motherhood, domestic work and caring for and management of the household?
Lord Skelmersdale: It is not surprising that the amendment has received support around the Committee, but is there not a slight misconception here? The “work for your benefit” schemes will not very often entail work per se, will they? They are aids to obtain work eventually; for example, they might involve a confidence course, a language course or even, in particular circumstances, a caring course.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, quite rightly opened up the issue of what exactly will be expected of jobseekers who are offered work. What will they be expected to agree to and on what terms and on what conditions? How much will they be paid? The noble Baroness has raised concerns that people may be compelled to undertake activities or take up employment that may be entirely inappropriate for them. This is obviously the purport of the amendment, and I agree with her that that should not happen.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC117
I know from my time in Northern Ireland, where I toured job centres, how this can end up. I met there a man with a first-class degree in computer programming who was staffing a desk. That was a mismatch of that person’s skills and the function required by the position he held. As it happened, he held the position totally voluntarily because he wanted to be close to and look after his elderly and incapacitated mother.
However, there is a difference between being offered a job that is wholly unsuitable and being offered one that is merely not ideal. All sides would prefer ideal jobs to be matched with jobseekers, but that may not always be possible. On Tuesday, I referred to an element of retraining and reskilling which might be appropriate in the sort of areas that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke about. It is sad but true—especially when there is a recession, as there is now, with the number of jobseekers swelling and the number of jobs available shrinking—that it may be too idealistic to expect ideal match-ups. Some mismatch may be inevitable.
However, I should say to the noble Baroness that this situation need not be permanent. A job where a participant’s skills and abilities are not being fully utilised could be seen as a stepping stone. After all, we are discussing a process of helping people back into the jobs market and edging them closer to being work-ready and, ultimately, employed. If no ideal job is immediately available, a related occupation may be the best stepping stone. I presume, however, that a personal adviser would in any event take into account the skills and abilities of the participant. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that.
The motor industry was given as an example. It may well be that, three or five years down the line, we will have no motor industry in this country at all, so that those who are skilled in assembling cars cannot find an ideal job that matches exactly the sort of job they are being asked to undertake. My nephew, for example, recently lost his job. He was a laser cutter for car panels in Leicester, but unfortunately the business had to contract so much that his particular shift disappeared. He immediately retrained and got a job as a care assistant. Now, none of us would regard that as being ideal, but at least it kept him in work. This, after all, is what we are trying to achieve. I am sure that for my nephew and for many other people this will be a stepping stone back to the sort of jobs that they held originally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): I start by thanking my noble friend for this amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to focus on an important issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I should also acknowledge that I am in range of the stick and may be constrained in what I can say.
My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the structural changes that are happening in our economy, particularly in the manufacturing industry, as did the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I think we would all acknowledge her point about skilled workers having pride in those skills and needing to be valued. This is what we are seeking to achieve in the range of proposals contained the Bill, particularly in Clause 1.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC118
The amendment, however, raises the important issue that what is the right support for one person may not be right for another. That is the basis for the whole design of the “work for your benefit” programme. The work experience and the employment support that it provides will not be one-size-fits-all; the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was probing on that point. Rather, it will be based on the specific needs of each individual. Providers will need to source individual work experience placements for each participant, based on their needs and aspirations. That will mean that work experience may be very different for a highly skilled participant from that for someone with no skills. It goes without saying that the advantages of work experience with regard to work habits and routines are invaluable regardless of the skill level of the claimant.
That said, though, we must also manage claimants’ expectations. The focus of the programme—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was pressing this point—is on those who have been through the Flexible New Deal and have spent two years unemployed; that is when these proposals kick in. If a jobseeker has indeed been unemployed for two years or more, it may not be reasonable for them to expect to walk into a director’s job, even though that may be what they were doing before. It is entirely reasonable that we expect long-term unemployed people to consider occupations other than their usual one, in order to get off benefits and into the more productive and healthy environment of the open labour market.
There is no current impediment to a claimant using their existing skills or abilities in their work placement; in fact, we encourage it. We also encourage the development of new skills if necessary. There is therefore no need for the amendment, because what my noble friend is seeking is already possible within the system. With regard to professionals, we accept that the recession could result in more highly skilled people being unemployed, particularly those in the financial sectors. We believe that the support we have in place generally is flexible enough to take account of individuals, particularly support, like the Flexible New Deal, which is based entirely on an individual’s circumstances. However, from April this year professionals have also been able to access specialist job-search services from day one of their claim, support that has previously been available only later on in a claim.
A couple of points were raised about the mechanics of the arrangements and whether health and safety provisions would apply. The answer is that they would. “Work for your benefit” providers will need to ensure that all health and safety measures are in place and, in partnership with a host organisation, that all relevant insurances are in place as well.
I emphasise that there is a range of support other than the “work for your benefit” route in Clause 1. The current package available under jobseeker's allowance will help jobseekers who find themselves out of work for six months or more. The longer a person is out of work, the harder we will work for them. Everyone reaching six months unemployed from 6 April 2009 onwards will receive significant extra support from Jobcentre Plus employment advisers. That support will involve extended meetings every four weeks or so
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC119
2.15 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment—I have no doubt what that decision will be and I do not think any other Member of the Committee has—perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Clause 1 is predicated on the fact that the longer someone is unemployed, the longer it is likely they will continue to be unemployed. Clause 1 starts, as the Minister said, at the two-year point. Why was two years chosen? Would not one year or 18 months have been just as—I would have thought more—appropriate?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: It is not only at two years, but the two-year timescale was proposed because that fits in with the Flexible New Deal, the first phase of which starts this year. The first 12 months are through the Jobcentre Plus three-stage process, then there are 12 months of Flexible New Deal. This is aimed at those individuals who, having been through that process—two years of support through those various mechanisms—are still without a connection with the labour market. That is why we chose two years: it fits in with and runs on from the Flexible New Deal.
Baroness Turner of Camden: First, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who mentioned my stick, which remains well in view on the table. I indeed thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed response to the concerns that several of us have voiced about the problem of long-term unemployed people who nevertheless have skills, but who have become separated from the world of work. I quite understand that one of the aims of the Bill is to ensure that people do not become separated from the world of work for good—or for bad—but are engaged in a work-related environment that brings them back into the world of work. Of course, everyone has to agree with that. I was concerned about the feeling that many skilled people will be turned off from the whole scheme if they are put into a work-related environment that is well below their skills and does not utilise what they feel that they have to offer. It is important to try to ensure that people in that position are put into a work-related environment where their skills are utilised. Of course, they could be used in training in many instances. It would be very good if that was so.
I am grateful for the Minister’s detailed response. I understand that the Bill’s objectives are entirely benevolent and aimed at ensuring that people do not fall out of the work environment, which most of them have been used to all their lives until suddenly they become
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC120
12: Clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) Without prejudice to any regulations made under subsection (5)(e) or (f) above, a person is to be regarded as having good cause for any act or omission for those purposes if, and to the extent that, the act or omission is attributable to any of the following circumstances—
(a) the claimant in question was suffering from some disease or bodily or mental disablement on account of which—
(i) he was not able to participate in the scheme or work related activity in question;
(ii) his attendance would have put at risk his health; or
(iii) his attendance would have put at risk the health of other persons;
(b) the claimant’s failure to participate in the scheme or activity resulted from a religious or conscientious objection sincerely held;
(c) the time it took, or would normally have taken, for the claimant to travel from his home to the scheme or activity and back to his home by a route and means appropriate to his circumstances and to the scheme or activity exceeded, or would have exceeded, one hour in either direction or, where no appropriate scheme or activity is available within one hour of his home, such greater time as is necessary in the particular circumstances of the nearest appropriate scheme or activity;
(d) the claimant had caring responsibilities and—
(i) no close relative of the person he cared for and no other member of that person’s household was available to care for him; and
(ii) in the circumstances of the case it was not practical for the claimant to make other arrangements for the care of that person;
(e) the claimant was attending court as a party to any proceedings, or as a witness or as a juror;
(f) the claimant was arranging or attending the funeral of a close relative or close friend;
(g) the claimant was engaged in—
(i) the manning or launching of a lifeboat; or
(ii) the performance of duty as a part-time member of a fire brigade;
(h) the claimant was required to deal with some domestic emergency; or
(i) the claimant was engaged during an emergency in duties for the benefit of others.”
Baroness Meacher: In moving Amendment 12, I shall speak also to Amendments 38, 76 and 87, all of which provide a definition of the concept of “good cause” in the Bill. These are probing amendments and we would do well to work on the detail of the definition of good cause between now and Report stage. The main purpose of the amendments is to argue the principle that this definition should be on the face of the Bill.
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC121
If a claimant fails to participate in a scheme or activity directed under the “work for your benefits” scheme under the new income support rules or in relation to the conditionality conditions for employment and support allowance, he may be subject to benefit sanctions. The amendments apply the same definition of good cause in each of the benefit systems covered by the Welfare Reform Bill. The definition is taken from the definition of good cause used in the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, Statutory Instrument No. 207, and I am aware that the matters listed in our amendment differ from those listed in the draft regulations sent to us by the Minister on 4 June. I shall return to the point in a moment.
The importance of the amendments lies in the fact that one of the fundamental safeguards in the Bill against people being punished for things outside their control is the defence of good cause. This safeguard is crucial in upholding Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ensuring that the balance between rights and responsibilities in the welfare system is fair and effective. In fact, it is not just because of Articles 3 and 8 that I am arguing this case, but it happens that it is a key point which needs to be made.
Despite the importance of the concept of safeguarding claimants, the Welfare Reform Bill itself does not contain a definition of good cause; instead it will come in regulations. We believe that it is essential that Parliament has a full opportunity to consider permissible grounds for a person’s failure to attend the relevant schemes or activity. This ensures a fair balance in the legislation between the coercive powers and the appropriate safeguards. This view was given by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 14th report, Legislative Scrutiny: Welfare Reform Bill, which I shall quote for the record:
“While the detailed delegated powers memorandum provided by the Government aids scrutiny of the proposals of the Bill, it is difficult to scrutinise proposed safeguards for their impact on individual human rights on this basis. We reiterate our previous recommendation that where safeguards are relevant to the Government’s view on human rights compatibility, those safeguards should be provided on the face of the Bill”.
The committee goes on say that where the Government’s view on compatibility relies on safeguards to be provided in secondary legislation,
We are to have draft regulations during the course of the Bill. The committee goes on:
“At the very least, the Government should describe in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill the safeguards it proposes to provide”.
I must acknowledge that the Government have met the lower-level recommendation of the Joint Committee, but I am sure that I am not the only Member of the Committee who does not find that acceptable. To have subsection (a) in the Bill is particularly important for people with mental health and other fluctuating conditions. I tend to raise the issue of these people, but they are incredibly vulnerable in the face of the benefits system and all these conditionality clauses. As we have debated on many occasions, some people experience periods of varying length of being well interspersed with episodes
11 Jun 2009 : Column GC122
I am grateful to the Minister for sending us a copy of the draft regulations entitled the Employment and Support Allowance (Work-Related Activity, Action Plans and Directions) (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2010. These regulations provide an alternative wording to that in our amendment. Can the Minister inform us whether these regulations were also available to Members of the other place when the Bill was debated there? If not, then the Government have not satisfied even the backstop demand of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
My general concern about the regulations that the Minister sent is that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take account of the matters listed under paragraph (5) of the regulations. The regulations are very clear that the Secretary of State may take those matters into account. Presumably that also means that he may decide not to take them into account. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that point. From my point of view, the principle of having them in the Bill is the main thrust of these amendments.
I also want to pick up two matters listed in the new government regulations. The first concerns transport difficulties. That issue was raised in response to an amendment in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in an earlier debate on rural areas and the time involved in travelling to and from work-related activities. Our amendment makes explicit what time would be reasonable. It makes it clear that travel taking more than one hour in either direction would not be reasonable and should be accepted as good cause if the claimant turned down an activity on those grounds. Does the Minister agree? If he does, perhaps he will ensure that, whatever regulations are devised in the future, that point is made clear.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |