Covid-19: Strategy

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

There is good reason for the two-metre social distancing rules, because experimental and mathematically modelled data support the view that the droplets associated with the spread of coronavirus—those expelled during breathing and talking—in the main drop to the ground within a two-metre radius of the person. There is science behind the two-metre rule. Having said that, as we continue with our hand washing along with social distancing, I hope that we will steadily move to having the disease even further under control. SAGE continually looks at this, but there is good reason for the two-metre rule at the moment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, given that we now know that the low paid in manual jobs face a greater risk of dying from the virus than high-paid white-collar workers, does the Minister consider that acceptable and what steps are proposed to rectify it? I join my noble friend Lord Monks in recommending that the Government look to TU safety reps as a significant resource to help tackle the current situation. Finally, one sector that the Government have particularly focused on to make a start under their “baby” return is construction. Of course, one thing we know about construction is that it is one of the riskier sectors so far as health and safety are concerned. There is a long history of challenges to the HSE. Although certain improvements have been made in recent times, it is an added challenge to the HSE to go about the task that it has been set. Are the Government satisfied with that?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

On the noble Lord’s first point, we are extremely concerned about the apparent disparities in how Covid-19 affects people. That is why Public Health England is undertaking a rapid review to provide insight into how factors such as ethnicity, deprivation, age, gender and obesity are disproportionately impacting people. That review is under way and the findings will be published at the end of the month. In relation to his other points, as I said, we are working closely with the unions and businesses in developing our guidance. I am sure that we will take advantage of the excellent union reps that the two noble Lords mentioned. We are working closely with business in all sectors, including construction, to make sure that the workforce who return go to a safe place. That is in all our interests, and I believe that employers and employees will work together to ensure that it happens.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, the amendments are indeed very timely. On Amendment 103, I say at the outset that I wholeheartedly endorse the importance of creating sustainable, well-designed places and I agree that, as the Budget announcement makes clear, statutory delivery vehicles can have an important role to play in achieving that. However, I echo what my honourable friend from the other place said: I am wary of creating new definitions and prescribing a long list of objectives for new town development corporations and urban development corporations, however worthy those objectives are in principle.

The NPPF already provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice, and to a very large extent it incorporates the objectives set out in the amendment. However, I accept that there is a case for change, and I am happy to look further at the objectives of the new town development corporations and how they could be extended, with a view to introducing an amendment that reflects this debate on Report. I hope that in light of this undertaking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on behalf of his colleagues, will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Taylor, for Amendments 103A and 103B. The Government are committed to updating the New Towns Act 1981 so that we can better support local areas that want to bring forward new garden towns and villages. I emphasise that our focus is on locally led new garden towns and villages, and we will back proposals that have been developed locally with local support. We will absolutely not impose new towns and villages on communities.

The amendments set out one of the key changes that need to be made to the New Towns Act 1981, which is sound in its fundamentals but is showing its age. I am supportive of a modernised process that is consistent across both types of delivery vehicle, and therefore ask noble Lords not to move these amendments with a view to the Government producing similar amendments, which we will table on Report. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Harris for their support for these amendments. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the commitment that even though she is not able to accept the amendments in the terms in which they appear on the Marshalled List, there will be consideration and some government amendments moved on Report. Between now and the time when those amendments are to be tabled, we would welcome an opportunity for discussion about the content, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would like to be involved in that as well.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I will go through the process, which contains checks and balances which will ensure that a tenant has genuinely abandoned the property.

The landlord can recover a property only where warning notices have been served on the tenant, with a copy of the first and second warning notice sent care of any guarantor. The first warning notice could not in practice be served unless there were at least four consecutive weeks’ rent unpaid. The second warning notice can be served only when at least eight consecutive weeks’ rent is unpaid. It must be given at least two weeks and no more than four weeks after the first warning notice. Each warning notice must state that the landlord believes the premises to have been abandoned, that the tenant or named occupier must respond in writing—which could be by email—before a specified date, which must be at least eight weeks after the first warning notice is given, if the premises have not been abandoned, and that the landlord proposes to bring the tenancy to an end if neither the tenant nor a named occupier responds in writing before that date.

Following service of the second warning notice, where the tenant has failed to respond, the landlord must then put a third and final notice on the door of the property at least five days before the end of the warning period. That notice must state that unless the tenant or the named occupier responds in writing within five days—as I said, that could include email—the landlord will bring the tenancy to an end and repossess the property. The Secretary of State will prescribe the content of the final warning notice. This requirement was added in Committee in the other place to add a further safeguard to the process. Finally, if a tenancy has been brought to an end using the abandonment procedure, where a tenant had a good reason for failing to respond to the warning notices, they may apply to the county court for an order reinstating the tenancy.

I hope from this explanation that it is clear that landlords will continue to have to go through a lengthy and detailed process before they can regard a property as being abandoned. In addition to a requirement that at least eight consecutive weeks’ rent remains unpaid, they must serve a series of warning notices on a tenant and, when applicable, any other named occupiers. We believe that it would be an unnecessary burden on local authorities to impose an additional requirement that a local housing authority must also confirm that a property has in its view been abandoned. It may be difficult to determine whether this is the case or not, and requiring it to do so could place it in a difficult position. It would also be likely to introduce further substantial delay into the process of recovering an abandoned property, depriving the landlord of income and a family of the chance to occupy a property sitting empty.

It is already effectively the case that in the Bill the minimum period before a landlord can recover an abandoned property would be 12 weeks, as I have outlined. The clauses are carefully drafted but complex and, subject to Royal Assent, the department will issue guidance to landlords to help them to understand the new process. Amendments 35 and 36 would also replace the current provision in Clause 57, which specifies that a second warning notice must be served at least two weeks and no more than four weeks after service of the first warning notice. We have sought to strike the right balance between ensuring that tenants are given adequate notice, that the landlord believes that the property may have been abandoned, and to respond if they have not, in fact, abandoned the property, while also ensuring that landlords do not have to wait an unreasonable amount of time before being able to recover the property. Requiring that the second warning notice is served at least four weeks and no more than eight weeks after service of the first warning notice would add further delay and deprive the landlord of an income and another family of the chance to occupy the property when it is sitting empty.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

This is my first foray into this Bill, and I draw attention to my interests in the register. Clause 57(6) says:

“The first warning notice may be given even if the unpaid rent condition is not yet met”.

On what basis can the landlord assume that the unpaid rent condition is eventually going to be met?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The first warning notice would not in practice be able to be served unless four consecutive weeks’ rent is unpaid, and the second warning notice may be served only when at least eight consecutive weeks is unpaid. So there are specific timescales for which there is unpaid rent. I am not sure whether that fully answers the question; if it does not, perhaps I can come back to noble Lords.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I would be grateful if the Minister could do so because, on the face of it, the provision seems odd. The unpaid rent condition has to be met for the abandonment provisions to proceed. Obviously, the concern is that warning notices may come thick and fast without the chance of the tenant to have due consideration. The basis on which that first warning notice can be given if the unpaid rent condition is not met is somewhat bemusing. Could the Minister, if she cannot say more today, write to us on that?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Yes, I am happy to clarify. I have talked about a lot of notices and warnings; perhaps it would be better to put it in writing so that it is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I have one further question. If the rent condition is initially not met but then there is a payment which starts the process again, where does that leave the warning notices that have been issued? Will they remain in place for a possible second bout of the application of these provisions?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am happy to agree to meet with noble Lords interested in this area so perhaps they could list all their questions and we will try to respond to them when we meet in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I agree with those who say that these provisions should be recast. I want to pick up on the third warning needing to be,

“given by fixing it to some conspicuous part of the premises to which the tenancy relates”.

Conspicuous to whom? Is it the tenant, the whole world, the community that passes by the front door? It seems to me that giving notice to somebody by nailing something to their front door is almost medieval. You can imagine that somebody will put the notice up, the mobile phone will come out and a photograph will be taken but half an hour later it could be ripped off and be nowhere in view—certainly nowhere in view of the tenant. It seems an incredibly archaic approach. I think the whole thing should be recast but that particular provision jars immensely.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on Part 3 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said that numbers may be small, but these provisions are nevertheless important to good and reputable landlords whose properties are abandoned by tenants who have stopped paying rent. As we have tried to make clear, we want to find a balance between protecting good landlords and good tenants. Presently, when abandonment happens a landlord can go in and change the locks. However, that involves taking a huge risk, since if the tenant has not abandoned the property the landlord could be liable to prosecution for unlawful eviction and be subject to claims for damages in the civil courts. As a result, many landlords do not take the risk and instead take possession proceedings in the county court.

However, before they are able to commence court action they must bring the tenancy to an end by serving a Section 21 notice giving the tenant two months’ notice, and when they have made the application it can be two or three further months before they get a court order enabling them to repossess the property. In the mean time they receive no rental income for a property which is standing empty, and often will still need to meet their mortgage payments. The landlord will also incur costs in taking court proceedings. As I have said, abandonment may not be a widespread problem but it is estimated that it costs landlords around £5 million a year in legal fees, missed rent and time.

When a person surrenders a property they contact their landlord and hand in their keys, but in this instance we are talking about when a person abandons a property and disappears and stops paying rent. It is a different situation. That is why we think the provisions in Part 3 provide for a simpler and cheaper method for recovering property where the former tenant has permanently left owing arrears of rent that have continued to accrue since the first warning notice was given.

I also make clear that any landlord who abuses this process by not giving tenants proper warning and takes repossession of the property knowing that it has not been abandoned will be liable to be prosecuted for unlawful eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. As we have also tried to make clear, this is not intended as a route to remove a tenant in arrears. This is about abandoned properties. A tenant will also be able to bring a claim for damages through the civil courts where the landlord has not followed the procedure as set out in legislation. The provisions are not a charter for landlords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have explained, the rationale behind this is to attempt to provide balance and fairness for both tenants and landlords.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister help me on one other point, please? On the reference to rent not being paid, or rent being unpaid, what happens if a tenant, in struggling to pay the rent, pays an amount on account? Does that count as the rent being unpaid for a week, or a month? How is that dealt with? The Minister has used the expression that someone has effectively given up on paying the rent. There could be many instances where people are struggling to pay the rent, doing the best that they can, and making partial payments. If that is what they do, would that preclude the operation of these provisions?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Obviously, there will be a dialogue between tenant and landlord, and arrangements between the two may be made. As I said earlier, if some payment of rent is made and if a process had been started, it would have to start again from scratch.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I understand that if the rent is paid in full you go back to square 1. But if the rent is only partly paid, what is the position? Our concern here, as many people have said, is about unscrupulous landlords who will use these provisions for a perverse effect. If somebody has only part-paid the rent that would give them the opportunity of doing so.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

In terms of part-payment of rent, if any rent is being paid, the process would be ended. It is about abandoning a property—no rent being paid. It is not about part-payment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

So, a pound off the rent would secure the position.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

There would be a balanced view on this. As I have tried to set out, where payment is being made, that is not abandonment of a property. As I have said to noble Lords, we are happy to discuss this in further detail to, I hope, allay concerns.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with this amendment. It would be difficult to do otherwise because, as my noble friend reminded us, I moved a parallel amendment to what became the Welfare Reform Act 2009 when we were in government. When one looks back at legislation one has been responsible for there is always a moment of trepidation, but we are on safe ground in this case. Those were the days when the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Northbourne, were heavily involved in our debates. Having said that—and I underline the importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has placed on this amendment—it is slightly disconcerting to understand that one’s labours at the Dispatch Box all those years ago have lain dormant and fallow, so I press the Minister to say why it has not been introduced.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Manzoor, seeks to set into primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State, when preparing a claimant commitment, to have regard to the impact on any child affected by it. I fully support the principle that requirements should be adjusted according to individuals’ personal circumstances, including the well-being of any children for whom the claimant is responsible. However, this amendment proposes to unnecessarily prescribe the contents of the claimant commitment in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. During discussions with individuals, work coaches already take into account all the personal circumstances relevant to both claimant and child when agreeing work-related activities. We continually review the operation of the claimant commitment and will act on anything we find that can be improved. Claimants can request a review of their claimant commitment if they have concerns.

On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about Section 31 of the 2009 Act, it applies to JSA and ESA, not universal credit. As part of the claimant commitment, parents can input into the contents of the commitment within universal credit.

We are very clear about the importance of our responsibilities with regard to the well-being of children. Regulations 98 and 99 cover the circumstances in which all or some requirements should be suspended for a temporary period, which includes circumstances in which a parent has to spend time caring for a child in distress or if they are in the kind of situation which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about. The number of hours a claimant is expected to spend carrying out work-related activity is also tailored so as to be compatible with the claimant’s individual childcare responsibilities.

These reasonable requirements, including any limiting or lifting and the reasons for this, are recorded within the claimant commitment. The amendment does not specify that it applies to the responsible care of a child; it refers to “any child”, which would make it extremely difficult to determine which children are being referred to other than those within the claimant’s responsibility. This would make it difficult for jobcentres to effectively administer.

The key principle of the claimant commitment is that we treat people as individuals and tailor their requirements accordingly. We have chosen not to prescribe in legislation what a claimant commitment should take account of in order that we can reflect all the possible circumstances people can present with. It would be too prescriptive to single out one element—the well-being of a child—and legislate that claimant commitments must contain this information. It would not be practical to prescribe everything a claimant commitment should contain—we want to take account of a broad range of circumstances.

We know that developing a skilled workforce is key to realising the flexibilities that we have built into the legislative framework of universal credit. We want to empower our work coaches to use this broad discretion to make sound decisions that are right for the individual in front of them. As the noble Baroness said, I talked at length about the work under way to invest in learning and development of our front-line staff, including the work coach delivery model and accreditation. I did that because I wanted to stress the importance we place on making sure that work coaches are trained and that they use their discretion to the benefit of the families they work with. I emphasised that element because I wanted to stress to noble Lords that we take that very seriously.

Existing legislation already enables us to take account of the well-being of children when setting a claimant commitment; it is something that work coaches routinely do. Therefore we do not believe that it is necessary to set out this level of detail in primary legislation. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 31, 33 and 34 in the names of my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord McKenzie of Luton. However, I shall concentrate on Amendment 32, which is almost but not quite the same as an amendment tabled in my name in Committee. I regret and apologise that I was unable to be in the House on that day. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for moving that amendment on my behalf—more importantly, perhaps, on behalf of people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease.

In speaking to that amendment, the right reverend Prelate reminded the Committee of the promises made by the Conservative Party in the run-up to the general election. I want to refer to that promise again, writ large in its manifesto, which was to always protect the benefits for the most disabled. Despite that promise, the Bill before us does not fully protect people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease and other similar rapidly progressing ghastly conditions. Either the words in the manifesto say what they mean and mean what they say or they do not. As of this moment, these promises are not being kept. Going some of the way is what has happened in the Bill—and some of the way is not fully protecting, and is not always protecting, benefits for the most disabled. Unless this amendment is agreed, or the Government come forward at Third Reading with something to produce the same outcome, they will have failed to keep that manifesto promise. I do not believe that is good enough in a modern, civilised society, where people with life-limiting illnesses should not be expected to suffer any more financial hardship than is the inevitable consequence of their illness.

People with motor neurone disease frequently end up having to build bedrooms and wet rooms downstairs, adapt furniture and face all sorts of costs. Couples who may have been reasonably comfortably off rapidly find themselves in considerable debt. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham put it:

“Those whom we cannot reasonably expect to support themselves should not be expected to shoulder the burden of austerity”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2405.]

The most disabled will lose perhaps more than £250 per annum by 2020 because the basic rate of the employment and support allowance is not exempted. I appreciate that the amendment in my name is rather complicated, but it is a serious attempt to right a potential wrong. If it is too complicated, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of government to find another formula to produce a result that will give the full protection that is needed.

In Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham expressed the hope that Ministers would give the matter further and serious consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said in response that benefits,

“are designed to provide a basic standard of living to those who are not in work but at a level that does not disincentivise moving into work”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2406.]

People with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease are not disincentivised from going to work. They cannot go to work—would that they could. There is no behavioural change that people with these dreadful illnesses can make to get back into work. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, concluded by agreeing that,

“we absolutely must provide suitable protections for disabled people”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2407.]

However, she then did not support the amendment. The meaning of “suitable” is very different from the meaning of “full protection”, as was promised in the manifesto. A great many people with life-limiting illnesses, and their organisations such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association, take a great interest in what the Government will now do. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be able to say that he will bring something back at Third Reading along the lines of this amendment, which will honour the promise that the Government made in their manifesto in the run-up to the election.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I do not wish to spend too much time restating the same points that were made in Committee so I will keep my remarks brief. First, I address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which replace the provisions in the freeze with a duty on the Secretary of State to review the benefits in question, having regard to inflation and the national economic situation.

I remind noble Lords that the provisions in Clauses 9 and 10 contribute £3.5 billion of the £12 billion of welfare savings by 2019-20 that the Government are committed to. The Government have a £35 billion consolidation plan, as the Chancellor set out in the summer Budget and the joint Autumn Statement and spending review, and we are on target to achieve a surplus of around £10 billion by 2019-20. The savings that the freeze provide therefore represent a significant proportion—10%—of the work that remains to be done through this Parliament to restore the nation’s finances.

Noble Lords have argued that these amendments would merely place a review on the freeze rather than remove it altogether, but they would remove the certainty provided by a legislated-for four-year freeze. This would lead to increased uncertainty about where the Government intend to find the necessary savings to restore the nation’s finances and could decrease market confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver their target surplus by 2019-20. Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the impact of this freeze. I reiterate that there are no cash losers to this policy and that inflation is still forecast, by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, to be relatively low over the next two years, providing time for benefit recipients to adjust their finances to compensate. Furthermore, OBR forecasts at the Autumn Statement projected average earnings growth of around 3.9% by 2020, higher than projected inflation at around 2%, meaning many working families can expect to see the impact of the freeze offset by their rise in earnings. The annual average income of the poorest fifth of households has risen by £300 in real terms, compared to 2007-8.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, regarding employment and support allowance. This amendment seeks to place into legislation a requirement for the support group component of ESA to be uprated by an additional amount above the amount it would otherwise be uprated by. This additional amount would be equal to the difference between the current main rate of ESA and that rate if it were uprated by inflation. I should remind noble Lords that, as said in Committee, those in the ESA support group receive an additional amount on top of the personal allowance—the support group component—which we have specifically exempted from the benefits freeze. Furthermore, the enhanced disability and severe disability premiums within ESA are also exempt from the freeze, as are benefits which contribute towards some of the additional costs of disability such as disability living allowance and personal independence payment.

Noble Lords will be aware that spending on main disability benefits went up by over £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament, and that the proportion of those in relative poverty who live in a family where someone is disabled has fallen since 2010. We believe that we are continuing to provide important protections for the most disabled through the exemptions we have from the freeze, and that this amendment is therefore not required.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the freeze strikes a necessary balance between making important welfare savings while having in place the protections for the most vulnerable and disabled. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. If the Government are to be in surplus in 2019-20, why is it necessary for any benefits freeze to extend into that year, whatever the rationale for earlier years? The noble Baroness said that there are no cash losers, but we know what that means: in real terms, people are going to miss out. Specifically, I refer the noble Baroness to my question about what she said in the previous debate about the balance being struck between—in her words—the needs of claimants and affordability. I ask again: how were the needs of claimants assessed in that determination?

The response to my noble friend, who made a compelling case, was deeply disappointing. In any reasonable understanding of language, the commitment made in the manifesto has not been met by how this issue has been dealt with this evening. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect again to see whether the Government could at least come back on the issue raised by my noble friend. As he outlined, those with life-limiting injuries are the most disadvantaged and are missing out. This is simply not fair.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said in relation to the disability element, we have exempted quite a number of elements from the freeze, so we believe that we are ensuring that disabled people continue to get support and that the most vulnerable are protected. In more broad terms, we need to ensure that benefit spending is sustainable in the long term.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Is that it? Given the hour, I think there is no point in pursuing this, except to ask whether, on that point, there is nothing further the Government wish to say to my noble friend Lord MacKenzie in relation to those people who find themselves in the support group and are undoubtedly short-changed by the way that the Government have dealt with this uprating.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, we are protecting certain elements of disability benefits. We understand the needs of disabled people which is why, as I set out in my response, a number of elements are being kept outside the freeze. Overall, we have increased spending on the disabled and will obviously continue to try to ensure that they have the support that they need.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are clearly not going to make much further progress this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment but it is deeply disappointing that this issue of the support group has been dealt with in this way.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said. He is right to say that the process of this particular measure and its sections through its various parliamentary stages has been less than best practice. Of course, it is not the Minister’s fault; I think that the Committee is grateful to her for her concise explanation of what these amendments seek to do, and it is agreed that they are, by and large, improvements. However, having substantial bits of policy of the kind covered by the sections and amendments that we are dealing with this evening in a summer Budget Statement, with no prospect of any consultation beforehand—an ex cathedra Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then a long Summer Recess where everybody tries to work out what on earth it all meant—is not a good way of producing legislation.

It does not surprise me that there was a degree of confusion at the Commons Committee stages and that we are now faced at this quite late stage with admittedly helpful amendments. However, they are technical and they need consideration, because they increase the corpus of housing law and make things more complicated. Not only does the primary legislation make it more complicated; it will spawn secondary legislation. This House will no doubt look forward to studying it in great detail, larding and littering the statute book with consequential changes, including protecting mortgagees, implied terms in leases—which is always dangerous; from a legal point of view, implication by statutory legislation is never a good thing—and transitional protection, which may well be necessary. But at this stage I think it is appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the Committee to say to the Minister that housing Bills and measures of this kind should be done properly. Consultation and Green Papers are always an advantage. If we had had a Green Paper in relation to these clauses, some of the difficulties that the Minister faced in introducing these amendments could have been avoided and could be avoided in future.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and take note of the points that they raised. In specific relation to the draft regulations, we will be putting out information on our detailed intentions in due course, and I will look at what more information can be provided at Report.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can I just press the Minister a bit to say what “in due course” means? Can we narrow that timeline a bit? For example, is it likely to occur before we get to Report?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, we will look at what information we can provide for Report; I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

No, it will be within a particular region of Scotland.

Sanctions play an important part in the labour market, encouraging people to comply with conditions which help them move into work. We want the sanctions system to be clear, fair and effective in promoting positive behaviours and we will continue to keep it under review so that it meets its aims, but also to ensure that it is flexibly delivered, as noble Lords said.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about sanctions statistics. We will look carefully at the point raised and consider what further information is useful to inform public debate. We have made a start on this, and our statistical releases now include additional information on sanctions.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the noble Baroness deal specifically with the issue of how many, if any, three-year sanctions there have been?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

JSA sanctions continue to decrease, and the JSA monthly sanctions rate has slightly fallen—by 15%—over the past year. Each month, on average, 95% of JSA claimants comply with the reasonable requirements placed on them. On average, 5% of JSA claimants were sanctioned each month of last year. We can provide those figures; I will write to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the gulf between the department and what charities say about sanctions. I can only attempt to reassure him that officials are working closely with charities to investigate concerns. For instance, we have worked closely with Crisis and Gingerbread on improving communicating sanctions and will continue to do so. I will take the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, back to the department, because I do not have some of the more detailed information that he was asking about.

On the basis of those responses, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.