Social Security (Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) (Waiting Days) Amendment Regulations 2014

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am substantially discomfited by the fact that sitting on my right-hand side is the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Next week she is chairing a seminar on how we deal with these orders, and I hope that she does not mark me down too hard.

These regulations are not new to us, and we as a Grand Committee have been considerably assisted in their consideration by the work done, as always, by the scrutiny committee, which identified—rightly, I think—that these amendment regulations raise issues of policy interest to the House. I am also indebted to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which—again rightly, in my view—engaged in a formal consultation on these orders. I think that that was the right thing to do. I am sure that, like me, colleagues have been able to read the orders carefully; they repay careful study, and a consultation was proper.

In passing, I would say that it is disappointing that we got advance notice of these regulations in 2013—I think it was in the Budget, or perhaps the Autumn Statement—and that was repeated in the Budget Statement 2014, but these regulations required some consultation if the policymaking was going to be done carefully, and there was a whole fallow year following their announcement with a flourish—and I am getting more and more nervous about social security announcements that are made with a flourish in Budgets. So, that time in the year 2013-14 could have been used to look at some of these things.

The evidence that the SSAC has uncovered is invaluable in the consideration of this policy. Indeed, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the estimated saving is some £50 million in fiscal year 2015-16, and the savings will diminish thereafter. I guess that that is because we approach the introduction of universal credit in 2017-18, and I shall come back later to that important moment. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions the calculations done by the department, and these are useful for reference. Paragraph 3.10 of the SSAC report says:

“The … analysis indicates that for 2015/16, the number of new claimants likely to be most at risk of suffering financial hardship are around 245,000 in JSA and 35,000 in ESA … The estimated average loss of benefit to each claimant from this policy change is £40 for JSA claimants and £50 for ESA claimants”.

That is very helpful to know. The point that I want to raise more than anything else is the hardship that will be experienced by that client group—the 35,000 people on ESA and the 245,000 on JSA. That is the point of discussing this here today.

I am opposed to these changes. If I thought I had any chance of getting a Division that would successfully annul them, I would have tried that. I am seriously considering doing so, depending on what support I can garner from colleagues if restrictions such as waiting days are put on universal credit as we approach 2017. These are savings dressed up. They are pretty mean-spirited and hit the most vulnerable. They again concentrate cuts on the working-age population and take no account whatever of the environment of the past four or five years. A policy of this kind, if it were to be applied eventually to universal credit, would be much worse.

I therefore support the SSAC’s recommendations and need to continue the analysis. I understand and am grateful for the extra work that the department has put in as a result of the request from the Social Security Advisory Committee. The case for exempting ESA was strongly made but resisted by the Government, which is a shame. The case that the SSAC made for promoting short-term benefit advances as a way of trying to alleviate some of the hardship was discarded in a rather offhand way by the Government. Members of the ESA and JSA client group who are most at risk in 2015 and beyond will have to rely on STBAs because they do not have any other options to plug gaps in benefit. I clearly support the idea from the SSAC that communications must be absolutely crystal clear regarding what is happening to the client group so that they can understand the position in advance and get their claims in early. The recommendations of the committee were all well founded. I was pleased that the Government accepted some, but not all, of them.

I want to say a word about context because I get the impression that the department does not pay enough attention to the payment regime. The system of paying benefits to low-income households who operate on a weekly or fortnightly cash basis underestimates problem that some of these delays and reductions will bring. I remember the good old days before 1998, as will other colleagues, when benefits were actually paid weekly and everyone knew where they were. That changed in 2009 to payments fortnightly in arrears, and in 2018 we are facing the cliff edge of universal credit paid monthly in arrears. I do not think that the department fully appreciates the significance of the change in the method of payment. I point out the obvious fact that Social Fund crisis loans are no longer available and there is an uncertain labour market in which people are much more quickly churning in and out of benefits and work.

Yesterday I was made aware of a publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which reminded me that over the past four years we have been taking, and will take, £20,000 million out of benefit expenditure in every year of this Parliament. That is a huge amount and the vast majority is being focused on working-age benefits. In a wider context, although I might be out of order in terms of this debate, we need to think clearly about how the cuts are shared across any future attempts to reduce social security spending, 50% of which is now spent on the retired cohort of our population.

I want to say a brief word about the eight vulnerable groups who have been identified. I am sure that the categories are not new to any of us. They include 18 to 24 year-olds, the homeless, disabled people and prisoners—who are of particular interest to me as a non-executive director of the Wise Group. We have a Routes Out of Prison programme which tries to mitigate the fact that we send prisoners out on a Thursday morning from Barlinnie prison with £46 in their hands and next to no other support. Issues such as those contained in the regulations will make their lives and futures worse. Concerns about the vulnerable groups identified by the SSAC are all well founded, and we need to watch the impact of these regulations on these eight categories very carefully.

I want to make two other points. The so-called list of investments that we now have access to as a result of this £50 million saving being recycled was first adverted to by the Chancellor as part of the 2013 spending review. They are things like upfront work search, English language requirements, weekly work search reviews and annual verification. I may be missing something, but I thought all this happened anyway. If it has not been happening since 2013, I will be disappointed. I do not see that we can demonstrate clearly that these savings are going to make any difference whatever, which folds back to the point that I made at the very beginning—that this is actually a dressed-up saving. It is the departmental expenditure limit that will get the benefit of this £50 million and next to nothing else. This is why I want to press the Minister about evaluation. There is an undertaking here in the Explanatory Memorandum which talks about looking at the results of these new investments and how beneficial they will be. I am very sceptical about that and would like to hear a little more about it.

The SSAC report says that the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that there was likely to be “no impact” on business or charities is “implausible”. It is being very polite. Anybody who knows anything about the 245,000 and 35,000 people in the client groups that we are dealing with realises exactly how important charities are to people in that situation. I do not think that the department is living in the real world. It is a laughable statement. This will lead to payday loans and all that they bring, which is potentially deeply regrettable.

With the funding available to local authorities also being reduced, these regulations are bound to increase hardship. It may not involve millions of people, but it will affect those whom it does affect severely. I want the Government, in evaluating how these regulations are implemented, to have very careful regard to the consequences and the effects on these families. I want them in particular to reflect very carefully about bringing forward similar regulations when it comes to introducing universal credit later in the next Parliament. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for initiating this take note debate on a very important subject. I apologise if I repeat any of the points that he made, but they bear repetition because there has not been sufficient publicity about the implications of these important regulations. The SSAC, as we have heard, is very critical of them, especially of the lack of robust analysis of the costs and benefits. The impact assessment that the Government have produced in response is certainly an improvement. Whether it constitutes that robust analysis is another matter, but it does at least give us more information on those who are likely to be affected. I accept that it does give some credence to the original—unevidenced—claim that many affected would be,

“coming to benefits from relatively well paid jobs”,

as the lowest paid are more likely to have linked claims and therefore not be affected. Nevertheless, nearly two-fifths of JSA and three-fifths of ESA unlinked claims were from those earning less than £5,200.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank my noble friend, particularly as I am quoting from a lone mother who is very upset. She says:

“The sanction is over a missed Thursday 9am appointment. My next appointment is 3pm on a Monday. My advisor is well aware that my son is at school for 8.50 am, it takes 25 minutes to get to WP, I collect my son at 3.15 pm yet I’m expected to attend at 3pm for 30 mins. So I’ll be taking him out of school at 2.30pm. I want to help him do well at school, attendance is a high priority of mine”.

Here we have the threat of sanctions demoralising a lone mother who is trying to do the right thing by her son. How making her feel useless and overwhelmed is going to help her in her jobseeking is a mystery to me.

As I have said, I have not been able to do full justice to the briefing that SPAN sent me. I therefore suggest that it be invited to submit evidence to the review established under Clause 2. Indeed, what provision will be made to enable outside organisations with experience of what is happening on the ground to feed evidence into the review?

Of course, the public sector equality duty is not just about lone parents. An international review of the evidence about the operation of sanctions within conditional benefit systems, conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation a couple of years or so ago, warned that evidence suggests that the administration of sanctions is not rational and equitable. The studies conducted in the US have identified racial bias in the imposition of sanctions.

At Second Reading the Minister emphasised that,

“we are trying to design a much more flexible welfare system in which we individualise responses”.—[Official Report, 21/3/13; col. 753.]

It is difficult to quarrel with flexibility and individualisation, but the downside is that they leave greater scope for discrimination, in the negative sense of the term, and they can undermine rights. It is therefore all the more important that the sanctions review allows us to judge whether the administration of sanctions is indeed rational, equitable and consistent with the public sector equality duty.

The Government’s willingness to discuss the terms of reference of the sanctions review with the Opposition is, of course, welcome. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept Amendments 4 and 5, in the interests of ensuring that the review is as thorough and informative as it needs to be, and that the Government will express a willingness to take evidence from organisations on the ground.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, as far as I am concerned this is an important debate on an important amendment and, indeed, it is an important suggestion that we should have a review of the sanctions regime. Most colleagues already know this, but I am a non-executive, non-remunerated director of the Wise Group, an intermediate labour market provider in Glasgow that is subcontracted to the Work Programme, so I have had experience of some of these matters. There are difficulties that need to be ironed out and I hope that this review will take the opportunity to do just that.

I strongly urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to pay careful attention to what is being said, although I think that the amendment is a little ad longam to put in a Bill. I am with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in spirit, but I am not sure that the amendment is necessary. I think that we get the point that he is trying to make—I certainly do.

To the need for a review in this amendment I would add the question of the costs, which have been calculated as a maximum of £130 million. At the risk of being pedantic at this time of night—and I apologise to the House—I refer the Minister to page 6 of the impact assessment and Annexe A on the methodology of the calculation. Paragraph 18 describes the total value of the money allegedly at stake in this Bill. Frankly, I cannot understand it, but that may just be the hour of the morning. It states that the total value equals the number of sanctions multiplied by the number of weeks, although, in passing, I have to say that sanctions are variable in weeks—they are not all fixed-week sanctions, so I do not know quite how you can multiply by a number of weeks when they vary. That is multiplied by the percentage of cases of under-25s multiplied by the rate for under-25s and the percentage of cases of over-25s multiplied by the rate for over-25s. However, the final clause puzzles me, because that total value is,

“multiplied by reduction due to successful appeals and hardship”.

You have a multiplier multiplied by a reduction. Either my arithmetic is not good, which it is not, or the language in that paragraph is wrong. If the language in that paragraph is wrong, I would like to be told, because that is what we are being invited to consider as the potential cost to the taxpayer as a result of these changes. If the impact assessment has not got the methodology of the calculation correct, it would be good to know.

My other point is about recompliance. My experience in the Wise Group is that although many of these sanctions are originally set at, say, 26 weeks, the participant in the programme gets the message that they are going to lose out rather quickly and they come back into compliance. They are therefore reduced from a 26-week penalty to a four-week penalty as a matter of course. I do not know to what extent that is factored into the calculation of the total value. There are a number of methodological problems that I do not understand. One of the things that this report should do—I am not suggesting for a moment that we need answers to all these things this evening—is to look carefully at exactly what the total amount at stake in this Bill is. We look forward to getting that confirmed one way or the other.

Briefly, my view is that the Work Programme was introduced with indecent haste. The flexible New Deal programme was in the middle of its operation and in 2010, in a very short space of time, everything was changed. I understand the need to take away everything that went before, but everyone I now talk to tells me that the loss of corporate knowledge is a difficulty in working with the department. A lot of serious and expert people are no longer in the positions that they had. Bringing this programme in so early and losing such a lot of corporate knowledge over a short space of time is bound to lead to symptoms and consequences of this kind.

Part of the problem generated by these sanctions is that the notices that are given to participants in these programmes are often handled not by prime contractors but by subcontractors. I do not believe that some of them are authorised by the Secretary of State as they should be under the Jobseekers Act 1995, which is part of the reason why some of these notices are not detailed and informative. Therefore, it does not surprise me that the court took the view that it did. That is something that this review should be looking at as well.

Finally, one thing that I am clear about from my Wise Group experience is that a lot of participants in these courses do not appeal against sanctions because they cannot do without the benefit for the duration of the pending appeal—it is a serious loss of money to them. I hope that this will be investigated in the review, but we really need to look at whether the sanctions are being properly scrutinised in terms of the numbers who go to appeal. I think that people just throw in their hand because they cannot afford to do anything else.

In conclusion, there is a lot of important work to be done. I hope that the review will be serious in undertaking that work and making the results and conclusions available to the rest of us so that we can get this sanctions regime better adjusted for future use in the jobseeker’s allowance regime.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I hope to make an even shorter contribution to this important debate. I agree that the amendment relating to child poverty is apposite and important. I want to confine myself to seeking further clarification from the Minister, if she has the information to hand. It would be to the Committee’s advantage if we knew more about what we can expect from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, because it relates directly to the substance of this amendment.

I was pleased that there was a recent change to the membership of the commission and that our very own noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, has joined it. I am pleased about that because she is an experienced hand and I trust her judgment. I look forward to seeing the fruits of her work within that commission. It is important to us all. However, I was disappointed to learn recently that the first annual report of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission is not now to be with us before 26 September this year. We were expecting it in May. I make that observation because it is a sign of drift, potentially. If I am wrong about that, I hope that I will be put right.

I was very uneasy about adding social mobility to child poverty. The original terms of reference of the 2010 Bill as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, were the correct ones. The Deputy Prime Minister, of whom I am a great fan, as I am sure people understand, was wrong. Social mobility is a different subject altogether. It is much longer term and in the short term, we are dealing with a situation that is more of an emergency than the aspiration of social mobility, which of course we all accept. We really need to understand what contribution to child poverty this commission will make. If the Front Bench can tell us anything about that in the course of this amendment, that would be very useful.

My second point is that of course we know that there is a consultation on child poverty measurement. I am taxing my memory here, but I think we were expecting the end of the consultation to be earlier this year—some time in February. If that is the case and my memory is correct, I hope we can be told that the Government’s contribution to the further development of child poverty measurement will be vouchsafed to us sometime soon. It will certainly be important to get hold of this around the time of the Budget, if we can. Some of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessments of future policy in terms of the Budget should be seen against the background of the Government’s view about how they will treat child poverty measurement in the future.

I am slightly nervous about some of the things that I have been hearing are being factored into the measurement of child poverty in the future. It may be that I am misreading signals but I hope that we do not lose focus on the fact that, at the end of the day, child poverty can be addressed only with money. Regarding any attempt to dress that up and expand the measurements too widely, while I am in favour of having all the data and metrics that we can access, for the reasons I explained on the last amendment we are facing an emergency situation the extent of which I did not anticipate.

The difficulties are mounting up, as we heard earlier. The decisions to be taken by the Government in the near future on measuring the data on child poverty are very important. If the Minister can help us to understand when we might expect information of that kind, it would help the Committee’s consideration of this Bill not just today but over the rest of its proceedings.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friends on this important amendment, which has been moved so ably. The Government have still not explained why they did not include the impact on child poverty in the impact assessment for the Bill, as they promised. A Written Answer in the Commons as late as 30 January wrongly stated that the impact assessment sets out the estimated child and adult poverty effects, but it does not. As it is, the shameful figures had to be dragged out of the Government by a Written Question, as my noble friend said. Nor have the Government explained to the Committee how the anticipated increase in the number of children living in poverty thereby revealed is compatible with their obligations under the Child Poverty Act 2010, to which my noble friend referred. I asked this question during Second Reading, but answer came there none.

Instead, the Minister deflected the question with the Government’s usual line that the child poverty measurement indicators are somehow not fit for purpose —picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. That was followed by a brief discussion about the importance of education, debt and paid work in tackling poverty, but nothing was said about how by enacting this legislation and knowingly adding 200,000 children to the poverty rolls, the Government are fulfilling their obligations under the Act. Those obligations are in addition to the increase in child poverty estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to which my noble friend referred. I would be grateful if today the Minister could answer the question I asked at Second Reading. What does this mean for the Government’s statutory obligations under the Act? Whatever the Government think about the measures of poverty enshrined in the Act, unless they plan to amend it—perhaps the Minister could tell us if they do—they must face up to their legal obligations as set out in it. What countervailing measures will they take against the increase of 200,000 children living in poverty?

I agree with the Minister that education, debt and work are important factors in any anti-poverty strategy, but it is unclear how reducing real incomes will help with any of them. How, for instance, will making life harder for low-income families enhance the educational chances of their children? Hungry children do not make good learners. Anxious and stressed parents are less able to support their children’s education. Adequate incomes are important to educational chances. Paul Gregg has estimated that around 50% of educational inequalities or attainment gaps between the rich and the poor in the UK stem from differences in income. Similarly, as the Minister said, debt is a major problem for poor families, but I fail to see how reducing their weekly income will reduce that problem. All the children’s charities are predicting an increase in debt as a consequence of this Bill, and a Bill that depresses the incomes of low-income workers is hardly conducive to promoting work as the best route out of poverty. I made the point earlier about what Alan Marsh said: people who are demoralised do not make very effective jobseekers.

As the Government consistently attempt to deflect questions about the impact of the Bill on child poverty by dismissing the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010 as inadequate I should like to say a few words, if the Committee will indulge me, about their recent consultation on those measures. Noble Lords might have read a letter recently in the Guardian from eight fellows of the British Academy, myself included. The letter argued that the Government’s proposals to measure child poverty in a new way,

“are confused and would meet neither the government’s objectives nor international standards”.

While accepting that,

“it is helpful to track what is happening to the factors that lead to poverty and the barriers to children’s life chances”,

the letter advises that,

“it does not make sense to combine all of these into a single measure. To do so would open up the government to the accusation that it aims to dilute the importance of income in monitoring the extent of ‘poverty’ at precisely the time that its policies will be reducing the real incomes of poor families”.

Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I want to make a very brief point. However, it is a positive point, after having been rather critical of the Universal Credit Regulations.

During our discussions on the Bill, I raised on a number of occasions my concern that there had been a suggestion that the payment of contributory benefits might be wrapped up with universal credit. That would mean that it would all go into one bank account even though contributory JSA is an individual entitlement. Therefore, I am delighted that that will not happen. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that no step will be taken to make that happen without first debating it in both Houses of Parliament. It is an important issue and it could mean the loss of individual entitlement, particularly for many women who have now come within the contributory benefit system.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

It is still a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness because she made a point that I was going to make. I want to make two remarks on which I would like the Minister to reflect. The first is about the contributory system—the national insurance system. In the middle of last year, I remember listening with great attention to a lecture given by a valued friend, Malcolm Wicks, who sadly died recently. He was a great defender of the national contributory system. He gave a lecture on how he melded the concept of citizenship with the national insurance principle. He said that this involved a lifetime longitudinal commitment both ways between the state and the individual, with people paying in and people taking out, and that people understood that. He was an exponent of that all his life and I certainly miss his good counsel and wisdom. I share his view. We cannot allow these regulations to pass without remarking that this is another notch down in the diminishing of the national insurance principle. I regret that. I understand why the Government are doing it because otherwise the misalignment would be confusing. If you are introducing universal credit, I understand the rationale and it makes perfect sense. However, universal credit does not have the advantage that the national insurance contributory principle had of giving a longer-term relationship between the state and the individual. I want to put that on the record in passing.

Secondly, conditionality for people who are paying national insurance contributions suggests to me that people should perhaps pay less because they now have to submit themselves to sanctions. I have a strong view on sanctions and earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, reflected some of that. I take the Paul Gregg view that sanctions are positive only if you can get the full commitment of the individual who might be potentially taking on a jobseeker’s commitment that will lead to sanctions, and if they feel that they are in charge of the process. That is not the case with the system of conditionality as it is currently cast, although with a bit of flexibility it might be amended in that direction to put people in a position where they feel they are more in control of what is going on. They are then much more likely to understand the rationale of a sanction being applied to them. That is work in progress. I hope it will be part of the careful evaluation that the Minister explained to us earlier this afternoon the Government will undertake.

My points really comprise two moans about national insurance that I am getting off my chest. I do not expect the Government to do anything about it. However, these regulations change things in a way that is significant for the future of the national insurance system. Indeed, perhaps in the long term, once universal credit gets into a steady state, the Government of the day—whoever they may be—may want to ask themselves whether it is sensible to continue to have a residual diminishing national insurance contributory principle set of benefits running alongside universal credit. I am agnostic about that but I certainly think that it needs to be recognised in this important debate.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I will focus on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, particularly its implications for people of working age.

As someone who is always quick to criticise the Government when I think they are doing the wrong thing, it is only proper to acknowledge and applaud the Government when they are doing the right thing. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, they have ignored the siren voices calling on them to tamper with the normal uprating mechanism in order to save money simply because inflation happened to peak in the month on which the uprating is based.

One reason why it is so important that the uprating is maintained, as the Minister himself said in a Written Answer on 10 January, is that:

“The increase in the cost of living faced by those receiving benefits is likely to be higher than for other groups, as those on the lowest incomes spend a greater proportion of their incomes on food, fuel and energy, the prices of which are rising particularly rapidly”.—[Official Report, 10/1/12; col. WA 9.]

This was borne out by a recent Resolution Foundation report, which states:

“Because the costs of essential goods and services have been rising much faster than standard rates of inflation for some time, households on modest incomes have fared far worse than official data suggests … With the cost of an essential basket of goods now rising significantly faster than general inflation, more and more low to middle income households will not just fall behind those above them, but also behind what is widely considered to be a minimum acceptable standard of living”.

The report further states that,

“indices based on average spending, like the CPI or RPI, are much more appropriate for households at the average than for households on lower incomes”.

The Resolution Foundation suggests a new index based on the minimum income standard, which, as the Minister will remember, we discussed at some length in Grand Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill. It is an idea that is worth looking at. The Resolution Foundation report also points out how the switch from the RPI to the CPI aggravates the situation. This is where I have to part company with the Minister, as I am sure he would expect.

An Institute for Fiscal Studies press release on the September inflation rate points out that the adoption of the CPI means that many,

“benefit recipients will be worse off than they would otherwise have been … Over time this change will prove to be the biggest change to the welfare system so far implemented by the government”.

Although the impact so far is relatively small, it will compound indefinitely over time. Even a small impact is significant for people on very low incomes.

Like the Minister, I will not go into all the technical arguments that we had on the previous occasion about CPI. The Minister said something about economists being very supportive of this, but after our previous debate I received a letter from a retired economist who had written to the Minister challenging what he had said in the debate about the technical arguments. I will not bore the Committee with it now but I should just remind him that it is perhaps just as well that he did not repeat them today.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie referred briefly to my final point. Steve Webb in the House of Commons talked about the burdens on the low paid. He said:

“That is why we are keen to raise the tax-free personal allowance”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/12; col. 1070.]

In that debate in the Commons, however, no one mentioned child benefit. I talked about this last year. I do not apologise for talking about it this year and I will talk about it again next year. As long as child benefit is frozen, it is crucial that we remind people of its significance and tell those who are too young to know that child benefit replaced personal tax allowances as well as family allowances. It therefore should be treated as the equivalent of personal tax allowances. It makes no sense to freeze child benefit when so much emphasis is being put on raising personal tax allowances as a way to help low income people in work, in particular those with children. Obviously, child benefit will help only those with children, but it helps those whose income from work is too low to pay tax. The more that the Government succeed in raising personal tax allowances, the more people will be in that situation every year and their child benefit will be frozen.

This message is perhaps as much for Liberal Democrat colleagues. I hope that they will take it back to the Deputy Prime Minister in the very public negotiations that are going on about the Budget at present.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am happy to add that to my long list of things that I will be taking to the Deputy Prime Minister from time to time. I am pleased to make a short intervention in this debate. I, too, was massively relieved that the full uprating undertaking was delivered. It must have been very difficult for Ministers. I was frightened to death that the pressures on them would make them buckle and I am genuinely pleased, as well as massively relieved, that the commitment was held to. It is a very important signal. I do not care who gets the credit in the coalition. Ministers did well and I want to recognise that openly.

I have a couple of technical, almost philosophical matters with which to worry the Minister. We always have these arguments. I know that this is a pay-as-you-go system and that this is not money just lying in a bank. The thing that has changed for me is the table at item 6, where the Government Actuary is looking at projections beyond April 2013. The balance in the National Insurance Fund goes from 55 per cent in 2010-11 to 30 per cent in 2016-17. That is a dramatic drop. Can the Minister explain that? It may be a deliberate contribution to deficit reduction, but the balance in the National Insurance Fund has been quite high for some time. Perhaps that reflects the buoyancy of the economy. I am not an actuary, but perhaps the Minister could say a word about that. If he cannot, a letter would do. The Committee would like to hear a little more about going from 55 per cent to 30 per cent in that relatively short space of time, because we may want to return to it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 61B, to which my name is attached, and to Amendment 61C in my name. The amendments have a particular resonance for me. One of my clearest memories when I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group was sitting below the Bar during the passage of the then social security Bill under the Fowler review, of which we heard earlier, and literally jumping for joy when the Minister announced that the then Conservative Government would withdraw their proposal to pay family credit through the wage packet. I was given a severe warning by the attendant.

During my subsequent academic career I conducted Joseph Rowntree Foundation-funded research with Jackie Goode and Claire Callender that demonstrated the importance to the well-being of both children and women of paying benefits for children to the mother who was in all those families the parent with main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children. This research helped to persuade the previous Labour Government of the error of their ways when they proposed to pay working tax credit through the wage packet. Now here we are again having to persuade the Government why it is so important to pay money for children direct to the parent who has the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and for day-to-day budgeting. This time the stakes are higher, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has made clear because universal credit wraps up so much in it, including housing costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has already made the case very powerfully for why what is colloquially known as “wallet-purse” is such a crucial issue, particularly for children and women.

I want to pick up a couple of the arguments made by the Minister in Committee, some of which I have to admit I was not convinced by. First, I make reference back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, earlier when he talked about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which came out after our proceedings in Grand Committee. It commented on the reduction in the financial autonomy of women, resulting from the payment of universal credit to only one member in the household. In order to address that, the Committee suggested that the Bill could be amended to allow payments intended for children to be labelled as such and to be paid to the main carer.

One of the points made by the Minister was to try to reassure the Committee that making universal credit as a single payment will not now be a problem because the Government are committed to ensuring that people can access support to manage their payments and help them to budget effectively, including access to budgeting products, such as jam-jar accounts, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. I put that argument to an expert who understands jam-jar accounts much better than me, and who shares the Minister’s enthusiasm for them. Her response was that it was a bit of a smokescreen as there is no coherent link between budgeting accounts and the decision as to whom the benefit is paid. Moreover, what is at issue is not budgeting capabilities but financial autonomy. It is about ensuring that the parent with the every day care of children has control over the money allocated for them.

That brings me to another argument used by the Minister that the Government want to enable couples to decide where their payments should go. It is not for the Government to dictate how a family arrangements its finances. The only decision that the couple can make is between payment into one or other single account or a joint account. As the noble Baroness has already explained, joint accounts are not necessarily the answer. Research by Fran Bennett of Oxford University and others shows that the existence of a joint bank account does not guarantee access by both partners to the money held in it.

While I agree that it is not for the Government to dictate how a family arranges its finances, is it not the case that their belief in the power of nudge might point them to supporting this amendment? Presumably, the Government want the money allocated to meet the needs of children to be spent on children. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that is much more likely to happen if the money is clearly labelled for children.

If the Government refuse to countenance that approach, then I suggest that Amendment 61C might be the answer. It provides for a couple to choose for the payment to be split between accounts without earmarking any of the money for specific purposes. This would meet the Minister’s concern that universal credit should be seen as a single payment. In this case, it would be a single undifferentiated payment, but split between the two bank accounts when the couple so wished. It would allow for the variety that exists in the ways that couples organise their finances. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect solution for, as the Minister observed earlier in our proceedings, effective choice exists only when the balance of power is equal, and the gender balance of power is still often very unequal, but it would be more consistent with the Government’s position on choice and would be better than the only choice offered in the Bill, which potentially puts all the money into the hands of one partner.

As the noble Baroness emphasised, neither of these amendments would cost money, but they would help millions of women and children and address the very real problem of hidden poverty which can result when resources are not shared fairly within families.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I shall add a few comments to the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Lister. I learnt the importance of this subject a long time ago when I was involved in consistorial legal work in a provincial legal office in south-east Scotland. I was surprised by the importance of financial autonomy to people within quite troubled and tense family contexts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned. I was then persuaded yet again, academically, by the exemplary work that she has done ever since with Fran Bennett and others to make this case consistently over the years. It is as apt in this benefit reform as it was in the Fowler reforms or at any time since. I guess I could be persuaded that this is a debate that needs to be conducted at regulation level and I am certainly up for continuing an interest through the primary legislation until the regulations are tabled. I will be happy to contribute to those discussions.

There is a real question that I want to be clear in my head about. We had some interesting discussions in Grand Committee and I am certainly sympathetic to the Minister’s search for innovative financial products. I think it is absolutely correct. However, if you separate out the politics from all this, I would like to understand whether it is factually possible for the agile computer system that we are developing with such care in Warrington to deliver the device suggested in Amendment 61C. That is a separate question from whether the Minister is prepared to deliver it. I want to know that we are not blocking off—this is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made—the opportunity to come back to this. If we cannot persuade the coalition in the short term, either tonight or in regulations, that this is the right thing to do, which I believe it is, it would comfort me if the Minister were able to say that the Government do not believe that this is right because there are other ways of dealing with it. I would go to my bed this evening and rest slightly easier if he were able to say that it is still possible and we would not need to buy a new computer system if we wanted to do this in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 62ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment 62B. These amendments focus on the issue of sanctions, in particular where a claimant with a dependent child faces sanctions because they are unable to access work or work-related activity or to sustain work due to a lack of suitable childcare which meets the needs of any child for which the claimant is a responsible carer. Amendment 62ZA seeks to ensure that the appeal tribunal takes into account the extent to which a claimant with a dependent child had access to appropriate childcare when the decision was made to impose a sanction under Sections 26 or 27. Amendment 62B also focuses on this issue and would guarantee that a claimant would not face sanctions and the loss of benefit where they are unable to access work or work-related activities or to sustain work due to a lack of appropriate childcare.

These amendments are supported by more than 40 very widely spread organisations. The recent child impact assessment statement from the Children's Commissioner for England stated that sanctions should never be imposed on the main carers of children under Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill, unless accessible, affordable childcare was available that would allow them to take up offers of work or training or attend interviews. These amendments would meet the commissioner’s concerns. Providing such safeguards would be consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 welfare reform legislation where at Report, my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton confirmed in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, that the then UK Government would introduce regulations to provide that claimants with a dependent child would not face sanctions in these circumstances.

Most lone parents want to have the opportunity to combine paid work with the vital job of being a parent once their children are old enough, but the Welfare Reform Bill fails adequately to recognise the significant barriers to paid work which lone parents often experience, in particular the availability of appropriate childcare. In Committee, the Minister outlined the kind of safeguards which would be put in place to protect lone parents from sanctions where they are unable to access childcare. I will not reiterate them now. Unfortunately, I have a whole lot of examples which I cannot now read out because of the time constraints. However, in those examples it is clear that lone parents are being put under pressure to work hours which are not consistent with their childcare responsibilities. I believe that the organisations have written to the Minister and I am very happy to provide those examples outside these proceedings.

I know that the Minister will say that it is not appropriate to put in the Bill the safeguards being sought to ensure that no one is sanctioned because of lack of available childcare. I am sure that the House would be very grateful if he could therefore give a commitment on the record to bring forward regulations in the same way that my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton did to provide safeguards for lone parents who are doing a very important job raising their children. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

In moving Amendment 103ZZZA I shall speak also in support of Amendment 103ZA tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. In fact, Amendment 103ZZZA has been designed with the help of the Child Poverty Action Group to complement and support Amendment 103ZA, and it is just an accident of drafting that it is being taken first. I shall therefore start by speaking to Amendment 103ZA, which also has the support of Carers 2000 and a large number of charities and churches. The purpose of the two amendments is to apply to universal credit the rules on recoverability of overpayments that reflect those currently applied to most benefits in regard to official errors that a claimant could not have known about and to provide for the offset of underlying entitlement from overpayments, a concept that I shall explain in a moment.

The current rules on the recoverability of overpayments that apply to most benefits provide for recovery where overpayments have arisen because of,

“misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact by a claimant or by any other person”.

This is a fair and just test which has been in place for many years and has been tried and tested in case law. Its purpose is to allow the recovery of an overpayment which arises as the result of a claimant’s actions or failures, whether innocent or fraudulent, but protects the claimant in a case where the overpayment arises because of official error by the benefit authorities. In other words, it sanctions recovery in the case of negligence by the claimant but offers protection in the case of negligence by the state. I believe that this is a fair and just balance which reflects the responsibilities of claimants to correctly notify their circumstances when claiming benefit and the benefit authorities to calculate correctly and pay awards based on the information available to them.

Clause 102 proposes to allow recovery in all cases regardless of culpability. I believe that this alters the balance of responsibilities and justice unfairly in favour of the state. It would mean, for example, that a claimant could be presented with a large bill for repayment amounting to thousands of pounds many years after an overpayment occurred, even though the overpayment was due entirely to the negligence of the benefit authorities. In return for providing accurate and up-to-date information, I believe that a claimant is entitled to the accurate calculation of payment of entitlement by the benefit authorities and that the state should bear any losses caused by its own negligence.

In the other place the Minister of State accepted that there are some real issues around whether vulnerable individuals can or cannot be aware of the error that takes place when overpayments are made without them realising it, and they only discover afterwards that they have incurred a substantial debt. We have to be careful and sensitive in that situation. He went on to say:

“The real question about the clause, however, is whether it is sensible to establish safeguards in primary legislation that apply absolutes to a situation and which effectively say, ‘You can never do anything’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 19/5/11; col. 1018.]

That recognition of the sensitivity of this is welcome, but my answer to the Minister’s question in this instance is “yes”. The Government’s view however, is, of course, “no”. Although the Government appear to have recognised the justice of the case, they have done so only by indicating that they will provide for non-recovery in cases of official error in a code of practice on recovery. Can the Minister say whether that code of practice will be published, whether it will be made public, and exactly what it will cover?

I do not believe that a code of practice is sufficient, and I would argue that it is essential that provision is statutory so that an aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal against recoverability to an independent tribunal. The claimant should have a clear right rather than be vulnerable to discretionary decision-making. The Government have expressed their confidence that the introduction of universal credit will significantly reduce the scope for official error. If that is the case, the administrative burden of retaining protections for claimants unjustly prejudiced by official-error overpayments should be greatly reduced.

The system of automatic recoverability, perhaps supplemented by a non-statutory code of practice as proposed in Clause 102, mirrors the system which applied to tax credits. This system has blighted the administration of tax credits, caused widespread injustice and hardship and has been widely condemned in the media and in reports by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Select Committees in the other place. It has also resulted in thousands of complaints to MPs, the Revenue adjudicator and the ombudsman.

Amendment 103ZZZA provides for the offset of underlying entitlement when calculating overpayments. Underlying entitlement means the entitlement that would have been paid to the claimant had the claim been made correctly at the time. For example, an overpayment might arise if a claimant had separated from their partner and the claim continued to be paid as a couple claimed for several weeks after the date of separation. The claimant had not declared the change of circumstances immediately and had told their personal adviser that they were not aware that they needed to because they had hoped that the separation was temporary. I think that sometimes, in those circumstances, you do not really want to face up to what is happening. If the claim is cancelled from the date of the separation then the claimant must make a new claim. However, had they immediately declared the change then their claim would have been reassessed as a single claim, so it would have given rise to entitlement as a single claimant which could be offset against the overpayment as underlying entitlement. I am sorry that that is slightly complicated.

This mirrors the provision in the housing and council tax benefit regulations which ensures that only the true amount of excess entitlement is recovered. This provision is particularly needed in relation to universal credit because there is a requirement for the benefit to be claimed by either a single claimant or by both members of a couple, which, as is the case with tax credits, results in many notional overpayments when there is a change of status from single to joint claims and vice versa. The Revenue has belatedly recognised the need for the offset of underlying entitlement in such cases and introduced non-statutory provision for this from January 2010. This Bill gives the opportunity of providing for offsetting on a statutory basis, ensuring that it is applied fairly, openly and consistently.

It may be that it is intended to do this in regulations. I must apologise because I have seen the draft regulations only today. I have had a quick look at them and it seems that they are perhaps intended to do that. I am glad that the Minister is nodding but it would be even better if he put it formally on the record so that we know that that is the case. I am very happy that for once the Minister is nodding rather than shaking his head when I am speaking. There is another question that I hope the Minister will be nodding at as well. Can he assure the Committee that there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the case of a dispute as to whether an overpayment was caused by official error and should or should not be recovered; or—I do not see any nodding going on there—if there is no such right of appeal, how will a claimant be able to challenge a decision to recover an overpayment?

In conclusion, this might appear to be a rather techy amendment. However, the strong lobbying by a wide number of churches and charities signals its significance. The reason they are so concerned is in part because they believe it to be simply unfair that a claimant might have to pay for a mistake made by the state. They are also concerned because they know from their own work what this would mean in terms of hardship and possibly increased debt to moneylenders and loan sharks as claimants’ benefit was reduced below the statutory minimum. Heaven help them if they are also subject to capping. I hope the Minister will look favourably on a small but important amendment, which serves to protect the underlying rights of claimants. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I support the case that the noble Baroness has made. I am particularly interested in the answer to the question about an independent appeal right in these circumstances. That would be very useful indeed and I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will be true.

I have four amendments in this group. They can be dealt with with reasonable dispatch but they deal with a very important issue that surrounds the whole question of amounts recoverable by deductions from earnings. During the Bill’s Commons stages the Government amended Clause 102 to add a new Section 71ZD(3)(e), which addresses the,

“level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”.

That is very welcome, as far as it goes, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a bit about whether any thought has been given to how that will be delivered and how that protection will be rolled out. That is important.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, being new to the House, I am no connoisseur of Merits Committee reports, but on reading its 27th Report over Easter, it struck me as being damning in its conclusion that the lack of information attached to the regulations was unacceptable. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester has confirmed that view.

I am rather more familiar with the reports of the Social Security Advisory Committee, having read many of them over the years. Its report on these regulations, to which the Merits Committee refers, is at the more critical end of the spectrum of SSAC statements. Its key recommendation was that mandatory work activity should not proceed. Nevertheless, it is proceeding on the basis of regulations deemed inadequate by the Merits Committee for their lack of clarity of purpose. As the committee underlines, these are important regulations, the effects of which could have serious implications for the livelihood of thousands of unemployed people. As we have heard, where sanctions are imposed, JSA will be withdrawn for 13 or 26 weeks and, if further primary legislation is passed, we could be talking about loss of benefits for 156 weeks for a third so-called offence from April 2012.

The evidence suggests that it is often the most vulnerable who are subjected to sanctions. Both the Merits Committee and SSAC comment on the ambiguities surrounding the scheme's purpose. The department denies any punitive intent, emphasising how the scheme is supposed to help customers develop behaviours and attitudes required to get and keep work, yet it is adamant that sanctions must be applied to those who do not comply. I do not find the department's response to SSAC’s concerns very convincing. The velvet glove and warm words about support surrounding the iron fist of sanctions look rather threadbare.

I am reinforced in that view by my reading of a recent systematic review of international evidence on the impact of benefit sanctions published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The review questions the efficacy of sanctions in changing claimants’ motivation or attitude towards work. It suggests that although sanctions may have a short-term effect in shortening unemployment spells, the longer-term effects can be counterproductive in jobs and earnings progression. It is worth citing the report's conclusion:

“this report brings into focus the gulf between the rhetoric of welfare reform and the evidence of the effects of sanctions … policy-makers continue to justify the extension of sanctions (and sanction-backed conditionality) on moral philosophy grounds while taking an ambivalent attitude to the evidence … with evidence being marginalised by discussion of principles and what can be expected of claimants in return for benefits”.

I fear that, in a moral crusade against the supposed welfare dependency, Ministers read the evidence through a distorting lens. As the TUC warned in its submission to SSAC, these regulations seem to move employment policy further away from an evidence-based approach. The SSAC report comments:

“The evidence on the efficacy of ‘workfare’ schemes is, at best, mixed”,

as the noble Countess has already pointed out.

Personally, I was unhappy about the previous Government's work-for-your-benefit proposal, but at least, as the Merits Committee notes and my noble friend pointed out, it was to be a pilot scheme with a clear evaluation plan aimed at examining whether mandatory work activity had demonstrable benefits. These regulations introduce mandatory work activity nationwide without any such evidence.

That makes all the more important the monitoring of placements to ensure that, among other things, participants are treated properly and are not used to replace waged workers. I am pleased that the department has accepted SSAC’s recommendation on that point, and I would welcome more information from the Minister about the placement monitoring system. However, as the Child Poverty Action Group points out—I declare an interest as its honorary president— there are no guarantees of minimum standards that can be expected from employers. I regret that the department has rejected SSAC’s recommendation that detailed guidance should be given to employers about placements.

My other main concern, which was also picked up by the Merits Committee and SSAC and was commented on by the noble Countess, is the question of discretion. The Merits Committee questioned how the scheme can be delivered with any degree of consistency given the degree of flexibility and discretion built into it. In its 28th report, drawing attention to oral evidence provided by the Minister for Employment, the committee observed that,

“The targeting of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is to be left almost entirely to the discretion of Jobcentre Advisers, and the Minister is sanguine that there will be local variation and a lack of consistency in the way that the Advisers apply their judgment”.

That is just one example of how discretion is being extended in the social security system, and I find it worrying.

Flexibility sounds very positive, but its flip side is a lack of clear rights and the danger of arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making and lack of transparency. Moreover, the JRF review suggests that the administration of sanctions is not rational or equitable and can lead to bias, including racial bias. Important decisions with implications for a claimant's livelihood will be taken on the basis of what SSAC refers to as the

“views and opinions of the personal adviser”—

views and opinions about attitudes and motivations that will require considerable skill to interpret correctly. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us about the kind of training that advisers will receive to make these decisions, and whether all advisers will have received this training by later this month when the scheme is introduced.

Will the Minister also clarify the department's response to SSAC's recommendation that,

“detailed information is provided to potential participants about the criteria for selection”?

In its response to SSAC’s report, the department says that it accepts the recommendation, but in explaining how it accepts it the department does not state explicitly that potential participants will be told the criteria for selection. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether they will be told.

Another extension of discretion lies in the refusal to prescribe in regulations factors to be taken into account when deciding whether someone has good cause for failing to take part in the scheme when required to do so. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. The department's response to SSAC, namely that doing so risks limiting the circumstances in which good cause could be applied, again is unconvincing. Clear good-cause provisions in the regulations would provide a safeguard for claimants, without necessarily limiting the circumstances to those listed.

In conclusion, the Merits Committee complains about the vague and insubstantial basis on which we are expected to assess whether the regulations will achieve their objective. On the basis of research evidence, I fear that the regulations will do more harm than good. I support my noble friend's prayer that they be annulled, and the Motion of Regret tabled by the noble Countess.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, the House owes a debt to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for raising these regulations this evening. As always, it also owes a debt to the Merits Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee for their excellent work. The debate highlights very important points, many of which have already been made.

The first thing that I will say relates to the initial observations about procedures made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I would support him in pursuing the clarity that we need to enable the House to demonstrate and exhibit displeasure to the department without necessarily seeking to completely torpedo and annul regulations. The Motion in front of us in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is well judged. It is not always a Minister's fault—indeed, I completely absolve my noble friend from some of the worst excesses of this order. However, we should have the ability to make it clear that if there is insufficient detail, and if we do not feel that it is safe to endorse proposals that are brought to the House by the department via Ministers, we should have a method of expressing that in a grown-up way, and we should be able also to test opinion in the Division Lobbies. I encourage the noble Lord to pursue that line of thought.

Secondly, my noble friend must have bigger fish to fry. I have spies everywhere and they tell me that this is an £8 million scheme. That does not mean that it is not important—there are important principles here—but he has much more important things to worry about, such as universal credit and the work programme, which are both crucial. I also understand that we have managed to get such a keen price out of the contractors that we have been able to double the number of places for the mandatory work activity scheme and are now thinking about 19,000. That raises questions about the quality of the schemes that will be provided. I have a calculator, and I can divide 19,000 into £8 million and see that it works out at something like £430 per four-week placement. These figures need to be confirmed; otherwise, we will all be confused. The point I am making is that, if we have four-week schemes that are costing £430 to provide, one wonders about the disproportionate sanctions referred to by colleagues earlier in this debate of £1,800 or thereabouts, being equivalent to 26 weeks’ benefit at £67.50. There is a disproportionality about some of this, as well as the question of whether the quality can be delivered on a four-week scheme for £430. We need to keep this in context, but there are some really important questions that worry me about these regulations that are creating potential precedents. These deserve attention.

First, if I understand it right, contributory JSA benefit claimants are covered by these regulations. Contributory benefit claimants are different from means-tested JSA benefit claimants. They have been paying national insurance contributions to enable them to be entitled to this benefit, at least in the first year, before they go into the work programme, as I understand this scheme as it is going to be rolled out. They are going to be tapped on the shoulder by some Jobcentre Plus personal adviser and be told that they are going to be subject to the mandatory work activity scheme. People who make contributions through the national insurance system should be in a different place from those on a means-tested JSA regime. I would like the Minister to comment on whether that is correct.

I also worry greatly about the way we are potentially interfering with the well-established legal definition of “actively seeking work”. The way I read this—and again, I would like to be corrected if I am wrong—being able to do just enough to satisfy JSA legal entitlement requirements is not going to be enough anymore under this scheme, because if you are only undertaking activity that is just enough to satisfy your personal adviser, you can still be mandated to be put on this mandatory work activity scheme. So I think we are stretching some of the well-established concepts. What people really clearly understand about “actively seeking work” has been built up over years in case law. We interfere with that at our peril, and I hope the department is thinking carefully about that.

I also concur with the comments made about adviser discretion, which is unappealable, to nominate candidates for this scheme. Obviously, the decision about a sanction is appealable and that is understood, but the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was right to draw attention to giving discretion to advisers, as other colleagues have done in terms of local flexibility to contractors.

Part 6 of these regulations causes me some concern because I do not know that I have ever seen anything like this, but I may be wrong. Part 6 talks about “contracting out certain functions in relation to the scheme”. If we are starting to contract out certain functions of the scheme—I understand that does not include sanctions—that is new territory as far as I am concerned. We have to be very careful about what Jobcentre Plus staff and personal advisers can do, as well as some of the providers of these schemes.