| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
22 Oct 2009 : Column 918
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, this amendment is intended to give the Government the flexibility to uprate the basic state pension by the commitment of 2.5 per cent and to uprate other social security benefits as the Secretary of State thinks fit, even though the level of prices, as measured by the retail prices index, has not increased.
Announcements of the following year's benefit rates are made at the Pre-Budget Report and the subsequent uprating statement. The proposed rates of benefit that will apply from 2010 will be announced in the normal manner. Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that I am not in position to pre-empt those announcements in our deliberations on this amendment. That said, as the Chancellor made clear in this year's Budget, the Government's commitment to increase basic state pension annually by a minimum of 2.5 per cent stands, and other benefits will not be reduced in the event of negative inflation. The new clause proposed by this amendment allows the Government to fulfil their promise to pensioners.
It may helpful to noble Lords if I give a brief technical explanation of why we have tabled this amendment. The proposed new clause is inserted into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This provision dates back to the mid-1970s, a time of double-digit inflation, when the likelihood of negative inflation is unlikely to have been at the forefront of the draftsman's mind. Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires that the Secretary of State reviews the rates of benefits and pensions in each year to establish whether they have kept their purchasing power. Where the general level of prices has increased, the Secretary of State is required to lay the draft of an uprating order. Since the power was introduced, the benchmark for the review of prices has been the retail prices index. Since 1980, the reference point has been the retail prices index for September, which this year is minus 1.4 per cent. This technical amendment, for 2010 only, allows the Secretary of State to make an uprating order in the absence of an increase in prices, as measured by the retail prices index, and to deliver the increase in the basic state pension from April, which will be worth around £1 billion to pensioners over the year.
The amendment makes a change to Clause 51 and ensures that the new power will come into force on Royal Assent. It will therefore allow there to be a benefit uprating for April 2010 in line with the normal uprating timetable. I feel sure that this will have the full support of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I obviously acknowledge the need to ensure that the upratings statement is adequate for the purpose, but I can in no way understand the technical explanation. The 1992 Act sets out some requirements in the uprating provisions and sets some thresholds to which the Government must respond. However, the Government can do whatever they choose. The Chancellor could decide in the Pre-Budget Statement to increase pensions to any level he likes as long as he respects the thresholds that were set in the 1992 Act; so it completely puzzles me that Parliament feels it must take this power in this clause. It is obviously welcome, and I am not against
22 Oct 2009 : Column 919
Incidentally, although I will not do so because it is too late, I could go into my usual rant about the difference between earnings and the retail price index, which over years prejudices low-income families consistently and widens the income gap. Indeed, there is evidence that that is continuing apace and will get worse. This clause and other clauses are otiose. If the Government used their power significantly, sensibly and fairly, they would grab the opportunity at the Pre-Budget Statement to increase the pension to a sensible level that would redress some of the losses that household incomes have suffered in the past. I do not understand the technical explanation or the need for the clause.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord by going over this again. The point is that, in the current provisions under which the Secretary of State can deal with changes to pensions, where the general level of prices has increased the Secretary of State is required to lay the draft of an uprating order. If the level of prices has not increased, that power cannot operate, so this mechanism is needed to enable there to be an increase when the RPI goes down. It is relatively straightforward to my mind.
The noble Lord drifted into what he called a rant-not a term that I would use, of course-about earnings. The Government's commitment is to increase the pension by 2.5 per cent, which is greater than current levels of earnings increases. In the period 1997 to date, pensioners have done better in aggregate than they would have done from a simple uprating of the basic state pension by earnings. He will also be well aware that we legislated in 2007 on linking again the basic state pension to earnings.
The noble Lord asserted that we should have a Pre-Budget Report with huge increases in pensions. I guess that that is just another Lib Dem uncosted proposal, and I do not know whether he has checked that with his leader, Nick Clegg.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, maybe my noble friend will agree that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, thinks that the basic state pension is what his leader assumed it to be; namely, £30 a week.
58: Before Clause 25, insert the following new Clause-
"Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence
In Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995 (c. 18) (supplementary provisions), after paragraph 8A insert-
"8B (1) This paragraph applies if domestic violence has been inflicted on or threatened against a person ("V") in prescribed circumstances.
(2) The Secretary of State must exercise the powers to make regulations under sections 6(4) and 7(4) so as to secure that, for an exempt period, V is treated as-
(a) being available for employment; and
22 Oct 2009 : Column 920
(b) actively seeking employment.
(3) If V has not entered into a jobseeker's agreement before the exempt period begins, the Secretary of State must also exercise the power to make regulations under section 9(10) so as to secure that V is treated as having entered into a jobseeker's agreement which is in force for the exempt period.
"domestic violence" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
"exempt period" means a period of 13 weeks beginning no later than a prescribed period after the date (or last date) on which the domestic violence was inflicted or threatened.
(5) Regulations may make provision for the purposes of this paragraph prescribing circumstances in which domestic violence is, or is not, to be regarded as being inflicted on or threatened against a person.""
6.15 pm
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in Grand Committee, the Government were pressed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and many other noble Lords on the important issue of support for jobseekers under threat of domestic violence. The Government were persuaded by the force of the arguments so skilfully presented and on 2 July my noble friend announced in Grand Committee that we would bring forward a government amendment to address this issue.
Amendment 58 inserts a new paragraph into Schedule 1 of the Jobseekers Act 1995, which will introduce an automatic 13-week exemption from the jobseeker's allowance conditionality rules for victims of domestic violence. It will place in the Bill a provision to ensure that such victims will be able to receive jobseeker's allowance without being required to comply with the jobseeking requirements. They would not be required to enter into a jobseeker's agreement if one is not already in place, would not be required to be available for work and would not be required actively to seek work. The amendment includes provision for secondary legislation to deal with more detailed issues, such as the exact definition of what constitutes domestic violence and the circumstances in which the exemption will be applied.
I hope that noble Lords will be pleased that this new exemption is in addition to the current, discretionary period allowable for domestic emergencies. This means that, in extreme cases, a claimant with children who is suffering from domestic violence, or the threat of the same, may be excused from the jobseeking requirements for up to 24 weeks in a 12-month period. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Perhaps I may say how grateful I am-as I am sure will be the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws-that the Government have made it absolutely clear in the Bill what should happen to victims of domestic violence.
Lord Freud: My Lords, we support the government amendment, which offers additional protection for victims of domestic violence. We accept the concerns raised in Committee and elsewhere as perfectly valid. It would be desperately difficult for someone in that position-perhaps having to flee their home and possibly
22 Oct 2009 : Column 921
Amendment 58, which grants an exemption of 13 weeks to victims of domestic violence, is a demonstration of how a welfare system can allow room for compassion. We congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on bringing it forward. We have one quibble, which is not with the policy or the purposes of the amendment, but with the parliamentary procedure involved. I refer to the most recent report-
Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I can pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Freud. I have just received from the Box an additional piece of script which I think will answer the point that he quite rightly was about to make. Perhaps if I read it out, he will be able to make a decision:
"I would like to acknowledge the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 22 October. We accept that the regulations for defining what the Government means by domestic violence should be subject to affirmative procedure. We will be bringing an amendment to that effect forward during Third Reading".
Lord Freud: I must congratulate the noble Baroness on being a mind reader, or at least an interpreter of the first two words of a title. That was our question and I was going to offer the noble Baroness the opportunity to explain why this approach has been taken. She has made it clear that the Government are changing it. We are delighted to hear the news.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, am delighted that my noble friend has been able to make this major movement forward in responding to the issues presented by domestic violence. I am so pleased that the Government, here as in so many other fields, have been able to take on board the concerns expressed in Committee.
I have only one question. An extension of 13 weeks is fine, but those of us who in the past have been involved in hostels for battered wives and so on know that there are cases sometimes where someone can be on the move for more than 13 weeks. Over several months they may move from location to location, unable to settle if or until the police have finally arrested, prosecuted or possibly detained the alleged abuser. Can I take it that the 13-week period still permits an extension for good cause; in other words, can the same arguments for a period of 13 weeks be used, where necessary, to go beyond that time where there is clear evidence of continued instability and fear of violence?
22 Oct 2009 : Column 922
Baroness Crawley: I think that my noble friend can take that comfort.
59: Before Clause 25, insert the following new Clause-
"Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995 (c. 18) (supplementary provisions), after paragraph 14 insert-
"Good or just cause for acts or omissions14A (1) This paragraph applies to any regulations made under this Act that prescribe matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person has good cause or just cause for any act or omission (including any failure to comply with the regulations).
(2) The provision made by the regulations prescribing those matters must include provision relating to-
(a) the person's physical or mental health or condition;
(b) the availability of childcare."
(2) In Schedule 2 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (c. 5) (employment and support allowance: supplementary provisions), after paragraph 10 insert-
"Good cause for failure to comply with certain regulations10A (1) This paragraph applies to any regulations made under section 11, 12 or 13 that prescribe matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person has good cause for any failure to comply with the regulations.
(2) The provision made by the regulations prescribing those matters must include provision relating to-
(a) the person's physical or mental health or condition;
(b) the availability of childcare.""
60: Before Clause 25, insert the following new Clause-
"Jobseekers' agreements and action plans: well-being of children
(1) In section 9 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (c. 18) (the jobseeker's agreement), after subsection (4) insert-
"(4A) In preparing a jobseeker's agreement for a claimant, the officer must have regard (so far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any child who may be affected by it."
(2) In section 14 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (c. 5) (employment and support allowance: action plans in connection with work-focused interviews), at the end insert-
"(5) In preparing any action plan, the Secretary of State must have regard (so far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any person under the age of 16 who may be affected by it.""
Clause 25 : Contracting out functions under Jobseekers Act 1995
Consideration on Report adjourned.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |