Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare guidance on how claimants might mitigate any penalty. This is necessary because there are some serious questions for the Government to answer about how the sanction system will work in practice after a delay of many months, potentially longer, and how a claimant is able to limit the effects in the way in which Parliament envisaged when it passed the legislation.

I want to turn briefly to the question of recompliance raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise) Regulations 2011—the regulations that were found to be at fault by the Court of Appeal—explain the consequences of failure to participate in the scheme covered by those provisions. Regulations 8(4) to 8(6) provide that a claimant who fails to participate in an activity may face a loss or reduction of benefit for a period of two, four or 26 weeks. Regulation 8(7) provides that if someone has been sanctioned for 26 weeks but has recomplied, the period for which benefit is stopped is reduced to four weeks—a point explained by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Recompliance is defined in Regulation 8(8), which refers to the claimant as “C”. It states:

“C will be taken to have re-complied where”,

on the same date, before or,

“after the date on which the Secretary of State determines that C has failed to participate in the Scheme, C complies with … (a) the requirement as to participation in the Scheme to which the determination relates, or (b) such other requirement as to participation as may be made by the Secretary of State and notified to C in accordance with regulation 4”.

Here come the questions, and I apologise that they are not very exciting. Can the Minister tell the Committee how this will work some months after the event? Let us say that a claimant with a fluctuating health problem has failed to turn up for a training course imposed as part of skills conditionality and has been sanctioned for 26 weeks. The course ended last September. Had he been sanctioned at once, he could perhaps have attended the remaining days of the course and had the sanction reduced from 26 weeks to four weeks. Can the Minister explain how that person could now show compliance? It is obviously too late for him to recomply under Regulation 8(8)(a), but perhaps he could recomply under sub-paragraph (b). If so, can the Minister explain how that will work? If the person has been given any subsequent direction and has complied with it in any way at all, will that count as recompliance; does the recompliance have to be specific to the particular scheme that he was put on; or does it have to be specific to the requirement made of him at the time—that is, that training course? Presumably, the Government would want to make sure that this person was not treated any less fairly than he would have been had the Government’s regulations and notices not been found to be unlawful, but how would the Minister do that? If he is not in a position to explain to the Committee in detail now, I would press him to accept the amendment, which simply asks that he issues guidance explaining to jobcentre staff how they should act in order to put the claimant in the position in which they would have been but for the delay caused by the failure of the regulations to be accepted by the Court of Appeal as lawful.

My second question relates to the question of good cause, which the Minister referred to at an earlier stage. If a claimant fails to participate in the scheme, they are notified by the DWP and will be sanctioned unless they show what is known as “good cause” for their failure to participate within five working days.

Let me give another example. I am interested in exploring how good cause works in this time-delayed world. Let us imagine a single mother who was due to attend a course but missed the registration on the first morning because her 13 year-old son was up all night vomiting and she could not take him to school. She could not leave a sick 13 year-old at home alone the next day, so she phoned up the course and explained what had happened and that she would not be in that day. She talked to the receptionist who took a message and said that it would be passed on. The message was not passed on and when she turned up the next day she was told that she could not join the course because she failed to be there for the start. I should say that I have heard of real cases where precisely these things have taken place, and I am sure that the Minister has as well. Can the Minister help us to understand what would happen in that circumstance?

I understood from what the Minister said early on that that lone parent would have been written to at the time that this alleged breach took place, asking if she had any good cause for failing to turn up for the course. So what happened then? Presumably the decision-maker did not make a decision at that stage, so perhaps this would be sat on from that point, say the previous September, until it got around to being processed from the pile of deferred decisions. Would she at this stage have to explain more about what happened? For example, if there were not enough information in the explanation, did the decision-maker go back at the point at which this happened last September to say, “Tell me more”, or will that happen, say, the following April or May? If so, will she be expected to recall precisely what happened with this child’s bout of sickness last September, when it is now potentially April or May? Will she be asked for evidence for a bout of sickness that may not have required a medical appointment if the child was recovered within 24 hours? If she did give all the information but she was then deemed not to have good cause, presumably she could now appeal. If so, can the Minister explain to the Committee how the normal standards of evidence will be relaxed, if at all, given the serious time delay, to deal with the evidential problems and the possible recall problems that come with that?

Finally, can the Minister explain which set of regulations will apply to someone who committed the alleged breach under the old sanctions regime? Will he or she be sanctioned using the provisions that applied at the time of the alleged failing, because of course the ability to reduce the sanction by recomplying has since disappeared? Can the Minister reassure us that in fact someone will be able to reduce a sanction period by recompliance even if such an option no longer exists under the current regulations?

I apologise for having to go into such detail at this stage, but I did not choose to be conducting a Committee stage at quarter past one in the morning. I do think, if we are going to be asked to fast-track a Bill of this complexity and importance, that it is very important that the Committee is given every opportunity to understand precisely what the Government are trying to do to these people. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)]

My Lords, I must inform your Lordships that the result of Division 3 on Amendment 5A should have been Contents 35, Not-Contents 139—not 137 as announced.

Health: Atos

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Atos is not an acronym in this case; it is the name of the company that does these assessments.

[Lord Haskel]

Following on from the question from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Minister—

EU Report: Women on Boards

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain has explained, a proposal by Commissioner Reding that there should be a mandatory 40% of women on boards has been legally challenged so fresh proposals are imminent. I add my thanks to our clerk Mark Davis and the team who drafted this report in double quick time so that we can contribute to the debate.

We are convinced that the objective of greater gender balance is right but we have tried to respect and understand the different ways that each member state conducts its corporate affairs. We call for a 30% target before a mandatory 30% quota is enforced. As we explained in box 2, and as the noble Baroness reminded us, the legal basis for gender equality is already in place. Indeed, some member states already have quotas and we list these in Table 1 of our paper. The House is therefore entitled to ask why we should bother. There are practical reasons. First, we think that 30% is the right number. Secondly, during my time in business, I observed that firms got into trouble when they ceased to serve society in order to serve themselves. The banking industry is only the latest example and one way to avoid this, and to keep up with the changes in society, is through diversity. Women are 50% of the society that we serve.

As we point out in our report, one way in which to increase the potential pool of women—and, incidentally, benefit from their knowledge and experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, reminded us—is to look outside the usual networks. The public sector, the voluntary sector or the women scientists’ concordat. All this is far better than the golf club. I also think that our ambitions must go further than the FTSE 100 companies and should perhaps include all firms in the FTSE 250. I strongly support the EU initiative. It is right to call for penalties, but only as a last resort if the target of 30% is not achieved.

Education: Conservatoires

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, what I found particularly interesting about the Olympics was the interviews. Without exception, the medal winners told us that their achievements were due to the individual and continuous support that they had—one-on-one support that enabled them to achieve such high standards in their sports. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey described, this is what conservatoires do for music.

Over the years, Aldeburgh Music has developed into a place where musicians can come for that one-on-one continuous professional support and training. Jonathan Reekie and his team provide support at every stage of development, starting with young musicians, going on to supporting musicians at conservatoires, continuing to support the emerging professionals through the Britten-Pears young artist programme—which is, incidentally, the largest in the UK—and going on to master classes and residences for accomplished musicians who want to do better. Its sense of mission for continuous improvement, even for the most accomplished musicians, makes it one of our most valuable institutions for encouraging and developing talent—and, of course, Aldeburgh is a lovely place to be.

This is not special pleading for Aldeburgh. What I am pleading for is recognition that maximising human development and talent through institutions such as conservatoires and Aldeburgh is expensive, but it is the only plausible strategy for winning gold medals in the future for our music and for its contribution to our culture, our society, our economy and to feeling good about ourselves. That is why they should have proper financial support.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)]

Is the noble Earl going to be very long?

[The Earl of Listowel]

Anna Freud demonstrated in her life’s work how complex child development is and how professionals working with children had to recognise that complexity. I am to some degree reassured by what the Minister has said, but there is great complexity here. Particularly in childcare, we have a very mixed provision and shortages in many areas. There may be things that we can think about before the Report stage that would be helpful in terms of future thinking—for instance, the work of the family information services might complement the work of Jobcentre Plus advisers, helping them to understand what is available in their local area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I know that noble Lords will want to go on but I have to disappoint them. I suggest that this would be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee until 3.30 pm on Tuesday.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The Committee stands adjourned.

Committee adjourned at 8.14 pm.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, without us rambling through the papers, I think that the figure is £500 million, of which £300 million is a very substantial proportion.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel)]

My Lords, a Division has been called in the House. The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment to have a 10-minute comfort break.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)]

The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.

Health and Safety: Common Sense Common Safety

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done us a great service by bringing a common-sense approach to the so-called compensation culture. Yes, it is long overdue. He has prescribed the right medicine for many of the symptoms but I wonder if he has really understood all the causes of the illness. Other noble Lords have suggested that the causes are greedy claims farmers and vulture lawyers—not, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. Are there any other reasons? Could it be that pressure at work causes people to act unreasonably when something unfortunate happens? Is it that people fear that there is an imbalance between pressure at work and the reward—not just monetary but in satisfaction? Do people feel that they are victims of injustice at work and the system is against them, as my noble friend put it? The compensation culture could just be a way of getting their own back.

It is many years since I ran my business but I certainly do not forget how difficult it was to get the right balance between putting undue pressure on people and the need for progress. It is not easy to get creative tension right. I was reminded of this the other day when a booklet called Stress at Work arrived on my desk. It is a useful publication by the British Academy Policy Centre. My noble friend Lord Jordan also mentioned this. The British Academy is not the only one concerned about this. The Health and Safety Executive is also concerned. It has produced a formula for measuring stress at work. In 2004 the Health and Safety Executive produced a guide for managers on how to reduce stress at work. Its US equivalent says on its website:

“The workplace is the single greatest source of stress”.

We all know why people get stressed at work. There is the nature of their work, the pressures from above and below, the competition, the interpersonal conflicts, the bureaucracy and the distorted work-life balance. It now takes two incomes in a family to pay for a home. There is the pressure to stay connected when away from work. Many of us have been there; many of us in this Chamber know what it is all about. Some of us can get out of the kitchen if we do not like the heat, but for most of us that is impossible. We need the income and, yes, we also need some job satisfaction. We also know the economic cost of absenteeism, high staff turnover and poor performance, and the social costs to health and family relationships. Why not add the cost of excessive claims when an opportunity presents itself when something goes wrong? It is hard to make legal claims for stress but far easier to make them for physical injuries that are apparent. Why not double or triple them to include stress?

Is this an unreasonable analysis? I do not think it is. The situation will get worse. There will be much more part-time and temporary work instead of full-time jobs. There will be cuts to staff, with the rest loyally taking on the extra work. There will be the stress and conflict of redundancy. People will feel that they always have to be present, even when there is good reason to be absent. The economic crisis might not reduce absenteeism but it will certainly increase stress. If there is a connection between stress at work and the compensation culture, it will only increase with the recession. Certainly, the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Young, need to be implemented but surely, at the same time, measures to reduce stress at work need to be implemented by both the private and public sectors.

There is nothing new in this. As I have said, the Health and Safety Executive laid this out in 2004. Well before that, most people knew of the need to be fair, to give people more say at work, and to give people the opportunity to have control over their future and a say over change, either through their union or their representatives, as my noble friend Lady Turner said. There is a need to be more flexible and more family-friendly over working hours, and to design jobs so that they are less stressful. We must also ignore those who say that these soft management skills are pointless. Indeed, the Minister had better take note. His boss, the Prime Minister, is touching on this today when he speaks about measuring general well-being.

My question to the Minister is: does he agree with me that there is a connection between stress at work and the unreasonable demands of the compensation culture? If so, will the Government ensure that the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendations to managers are implemented in the public sector, where the Government are a major employer? I am sure that many public sector and private sector managers already do this; after all, it is common sense and good management practice. If this is done, hand in hand with the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Young, we may avoid a lot of trouble, unhappiness and expense.

Poverty

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, I am not sure of the collective noun for maiden speeches—an avalanche, a torrent? Whatever it is, we have had it today and I congratulate all noble Lords who have made maiden speeches. They have demonstrated the genuine concern in your Lordships’ House for the poor and the vulnerable. I hope that the Government will take note of their concern that such people should not be exploited but should be given a fair deal.

The coalition Government are in a hurry. They are hurrying to change the nature of education, they are hurrying to have fewer public services delivered by the state and they are hurrying to change the economy. However, when you hurry, one thing stays the same: the law of unintended consequences remains alive, well and flourishing. As my noble friend indicated in his authoritative speech moving the Motion, it is the poor who are the victims.

Let me give some examples arising from the increase in VAT—a rise that has caused concern to many noble Lords. Some of the examples that I consider important have been mentioned by other noble Lords. Was it really the Government’s intention to take away half the surplus of the housing associations? Many speakers are concerned about the effect of the Budget on affordable housing but, according to Mr David Montague, chief executive of the London & Quadrant Housing Trust, the increase in VAT will cost the housing association sector £125 million, which is half its surplus. The Minister knows that it is the poorer households that are increasingly concentrated in social housing. If you want to eliminate poverty and enhance life chances, social housing is essential. Amid all their talk of fairness, did the Government in their Budget really want to make life more difficult for the housing associations? The noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us that housing benefit is a third of the income of the housing associations, so their work will be doubly more difficult—more VAT and less housing benefit. Was this really the Government’s intention?

Was it really the Government’s intention to victimise poor women more than men? As my noble friend Lord McKenzie told us, women have lower incomes, so the VAT increase will hit them harder. This effect on poorer women is supported by a recent paper from the House of Commons Library that shows that the extra VAT raised will come disproportionately from women. In addition, because of their lower incomes and their greater caring responsibilities, women are bigger users of public services, both for themselves and for those for whom they care. They will have to fill the gaps left. Do the Government really intend to victimise women more than men—or is this the law of unintended consequences at work?

Was it really the Government’s intention to penalise charities? According to the Charities Aid Foundation, charities will pay £140 million a year more in tax. Therefore, charities are going to be hit in two ways: they will have to pay more VAT and their income will be reduced because of the hard times. Yet, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, reminded us, the Government and society look to the charities to help the poor, the unfortunate and those who cannot cope. Indeed, a third of their income comes from the Government because the Government look to charities to provide services that many of us consider essential. I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Budget to penalise them—or, again, is this the law of unintended consequences at work?

The only way to deal with the law of unintended consequences is to legislate, not through dogma or political belief, for what works—for what gives the intended consequence. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, this forces me to the conclusion that this Budget is more driven by politics and less driven by the need to deal with our deficit. Perhaps there are no speakers from the Conservative Back Benches because it is impossible to defend ideology triumphing over common sense. If it were otherwise, the housing associations, women and charities would be compensated with increased benefits for the rise in VAT. Surely that is right, because VAT is a tax that does not take into account your ability to pay. That is why it is regressive.

On average, the rise in VAT will cost every household £500 per year, irrespective of ability to pay. That is why it hits the poor hardest. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats often spoke of raising a similar amount through taxing unearned income or through carbon taxes. Since the election, they have been silent. I join my noble friend Lord Watson in asking whether the Liberal Democrats have deserted the poor by having to defend a Conservative Budget—or is this another unintended consequence?

The stated aim of the Budget was to protect the vulnerable. My noble friend Lord McFall told us that that was shown to be misleading by the IFS. It was shown the following day when the IFS helpfully disaggregated George Osborne’s June Budget alongside Alistair Darling’s March Budget. They were shown separately and are dramatically different. The bias towards those on lower incomes that characterised the Labour years has more or less been inverted in the first coalition Budget.

This unfairness to the poor is further emphasised by the inconsistencies in the Budget architecture, as Chris Wales pointed out in a recent Smith Institute seminar. The Chancellor won praise for his commitment to the triple lock for uprating the state pension, but people on welfare benefits live in the same world as pensioners, often with higher demands placed on them and even less to live on. Unless the Government believe that they are all scroungers living off the state when they should be working, it would be logical to assume that, in the interests of fairness, the poor on benefits should have the same uprating guarantees. Is that unintended neglect or just plain right-wing politics?

Of course, other aspects of the Budget will hit the poor unfairly and other noble Lords have mentioned them. What concerns many of us is the gigantic gamble that the Government are taking with people’s jobs and livelihoods. The Government are convinced that we are spending too much on the workless and at the same time that work has to be transferred from the public to the private sector. It is not rocket science to identify some of the unintended consequences of that on poor people’s jobs. It is a gamble, because there are so many uncertainties. Business will not invest without demand, yet the economy is being starved of the money necessary to create the demand.

Also, a high proportion of people depend on benefits because of low pay. One-third of households have state benefits. If, as we are told, there is to be a high number of unemployed people, pay will stay low. Will that low pay be subsidised by tax credits? If so, jobs will be transferred to the private sector to save money, but they will be subsidised with public money. That seems curious economics to me. Surely if the jobs are going to the private sector to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, it makes sense for private sector employees to get a living wage and not the minimum wage mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, which has to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Are these more unintended consequences or just crazy economics?

Surely the right question to ask is why people are in low-paid jobs and what can be done about it. I agree with Iain Duncan Smith that you have to make sure that there is enough financial gain for people to benefit from work. You have to support poor people in work for a short time until they get to work longer hours or are promoted. Do the Government have a plan B? Is there a plan to delay the rise in VAT until the cuts in public sector jobs are in balance with the rise in private sector jobs? Is there a plan to think through all the unintended consequences? Is there a plan to protect the poor as things go wrong?

Synthetic Biology

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to review the regulation of synthetic biology in view of the recent creation of a synthetic organism.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Government are confident that the majority of synthetic biology, including the recent work published in Science, is covered by existing regulations that govern work with genetically modified organisms in the UK. In the future, there is a possibility that some synthetic biology involving the creation of artificial cells could fall outside the scope of the current regulations. An amendment to the regulations is being considered to ensure that artificial cells will also be covered.

[Lord Haskel]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. This is his first time at the Dispatch Box answering a Question and I wish him every success. Although the Minister’s particular responsibility is welfare reform, his department deals with health and safety. As he is answering this Question, should we conclude that the Government think that synthetic biology is a risky and dangerous topic or does the Minister agree with me that there are a lot of possible benefits?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that slightly back-handed compliment. I confess that synthetic biology is not perhaps the central part of my expertise. However, I am pretty confident that the rules and regulations governing this area, which is very important for the future, are robustly under control.