Welfare Reform Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Work and Pensions
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Main Page: Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord McKenzie of Luton's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
Welfare Reform Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment designed to focus on issues of in-work conditionality. We attach it to Clause 15, which is just on the “Work-focused interview requirement”, but it is intended to cover work preparation requirements as well as work search and work availability requirements.
The Minister will be aware that some of us were able to attend a briefing session with officials yesterday—I thank them for that. It is clear from that session that much of the thinking about in-work conditionality is at best embryonic, notwithstanding that we are being asked to give considerable powers to the Secretary of State in this primary legislation.
The proposition that conditionality should not stop when someone accesses work is not of itself unreasonable. The progression from a mini-job to a full-time job is to be encouraged for those whose health, family and caring commitments permit. How it will work in practice is what matters. We have only a few parameters at the moment. It is the express policy intent that conditionality will cease to apply for claimants without caring responsibilities or health conditions at a level of gross earnings equivalent to 35 hours per week at the national minimum wage, currently £212 per week, or £11,000 a year. Obviously, other things being equal, that would put someone within the tax and national insurance net and therefore into the higher tapers. Someone being paid twice the national minimum wage would have to work only 17 and a half hours per week; someone on lower pay twice that long. The threshold for an equivalent couple is double that for an individual, so the family income would need to be £22,000 before they escape conditionality.
It is not clear how well those parameters have yet filtered into the public consciousness. Perhaps the Minister can point us in the direction of the equality impact assessment which covered that issue. We welcome the fact that the Government have given some assurances about easements—for example, for lone parents with young children and for those with health challenges and caring responsibilities. There is also the flexibility promulgated for ways in which claimants can increase their earnings by supposedly increasing hours or pay, changing jobs or taking on a second job. That is nice in theory but likely to give rise to all sorts of practical problems.
The vagueness around the provisions, the extent to which providers or Jobcentre Plus staff will be making the determination, and the sources of capacity and training are a real worry. Affirmative regulations are all very well, but we know that they provide limited parliamentary oversight of what is a significant change.
A number of points arise: we know from the briefing that the ultimate requirement in terms of hours or overall remuneration will be included in the claimant commitment ab initio. How will this help those who wish to have a staged return to the job market? How will employers who are able to offer part-time work react to someone whose claimant commitment accepts that they are to achieve full-time work? It seems to me that this could damage their job prospects.
The test is apparently to be on gross earnings, so where does this leave, for example, employer pension contributions? These will be a significant feature, given auto-enrolment, which we know the Government are committed to introducing next year. What capacity will there be in the system to do the appropriate kinds of comparison? These will be complicated matters.
How will this work for the self-employed? What happens if the profits of the business are slower to materialise than hoped for, margins are squeezed beyond expectations, or the business operates in a fluctuating market? If it is a seasonal business, one can see the prospect of fill-in work, but on what analysis will Jobcentre Plus or providers seek to divert individuals from the sometimes painful process—particularly in the current economic climate—of building a profitable and sustainable business? What expertise will they be able to bring to bear?
Our discussions yesterday raised a number of issues about how the work programme fits with this, as well. There seems to be a potential conflict between work programme providers, which are remunerated by sustaining individuals in work for at least 16 hours per week, and in-work conditionality, which seeks to move people to 35 hours a week, if remunerated at the national minimum wage.
It is understood that there is scope to renegotiate outcomes with existing providers, but this could be a significant change of focus. What evaluation has been undertaken of the potential to renegotiate? Can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the business community and, indeed, the TUC, on how this novel interaction with the labour market should proceed?
We acknowledge what the Government are seeking to achieve, but there appear to be so many unknowns—unless the Minister can give us comfort this afternoon—that it is difficult to accept that we should give the powers that the Government are seeking in this Bill. At the least, this looks to be a case for a sunset clause. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, first of all, I should apologise to the Committee for not being here when it last discussed this Bill on Monday, and accord my grateful thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for speaking to some of my amendments in a large group which was somewhat precursored—I think that is the word—by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The noble Lord, in his speech to this probing amendment, asked a whole string of questions which I am not in any sense qualified to respond to. I am able to respond to the amendment, which leaves out,
“or more paid work or better-paid work”.
The object of the exercise, we all agree, is to get as many people as possible into work, through this system. The trouble is, if the words I have just quoted from lines 10 and 11 on page 7 of the Bill are left out, then once the claimant has got paid work that is the end of the Secretary of State’s responsibility.
What happens if the claimant decides that the hours he is doing are not sufficient for his needs, even with the universal credit? I accept there are the pension commitments and various other commitments that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke about. Is the claimant going to go back to the provider or to Jobcentre Plus and ask how he is to increase his earnings? If so, there is very good reason to have these words remain in the Bill. The question—
Lord Skelmersdale
Can I just finish? The key question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is to what extent there will be bullying, by either the provider or the Jobcentre Plus officials. I hope to goodness that there will be none.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The amendment, as I explained, was a probing amendment and was not of itself meant to be taken literally. It was the peg on which to hang the argument and this very important debate, which we should have. The noble Lord was musing about what would happen with claimants who wish voluntarily to increase their hours. There is nothing to stop them doing it, and we would all applaud that if they were able to, and to do so without further pressures on Jobcentre Plus or the providers. There is nothing wrong with that.
Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords. The reason I added my last sentence and prevented the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, from rising to interrupt me was for the simple reason that the claimant may well need guidance and help in order to get the extra hours or money that he requires. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to what extent this is going to be driven by the claimant, or by the job provider, education or Jobcentre Plus. I said that I hoped it would be claimant-driven, and nothing else.
Lord Freud
As I say, that will depend on the particular circumstances of that family. That is the point I am endeavouring to make.
I would like to finish with the point about the cost to the claimant of being employed. That is an issue that we are going to pick up in later amendments so I will not go into it in great detail. However, we recognise the need to take account of those employment costs, and I will pick that up more generally later.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses to a lot of detailed questions. I will just touch upon the issue of the management of our affairs. As the noble Lord has said, the proximity of briefings to Committee sittings has not helped. The situation was not helped by accelerating our start in Committee. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that putting amendments down late in the day does not help our deliberations. I suggest—and this will send shivers down the spine of usual channels—that we ought to defer next Tuesday’s sitting so we could spend the time getting on an even keel and perhaps get back to business as usual. I offer that to the Minister without any great expectation that he may be tempted by it.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, posed the question of whether this would be claimant-driven or Jobcentre Plus- or provider-driven. I understand, and I think the Minister confirmed, that this goes into the claimant commitment right on day one. There might be a discussion around that but it is something that is very much going to be driven by Jobcentre Plus or the providers.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I was responding to the Minister’s reply and saying that I am sure we are all glad to hear that there is no intention to rush into these things. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—when he is in his place—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is always good to know that the noble Lord is behind me and I thank him for his kind words. I want just to say, on the nature of our debates, that we could have had a big debate around conditionality as a whole, but in Committee surely what we should be doing is going line by line through this legislation, challenging and probing it in order to try to understand its full intent. But even in itself, in-work conditionality is a new and big topic, as a number of noble Lords have said.
The key issue which has emerged is: what is the default position in respect of lone parents with children aged 13 or older? Certainly our understanding from the briefing is that the default position would be the 35 hours national minimum wage. If the noble Lord is now in a different position on that, or perhaps we have misunderstood it, it would be good if that is put clearly on the record. That would deal with the points made by my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Sherlock. However, in their different ways, my noble friends Lady Drake, Lady Lister and Lady Donaghy have pointed to the newness of and some of the risks and challenges posed by issues around capacity, how the discretion is going to be exercised and what it does to the employment relationship. We are in uncharted waters and these are issues of real concern.
In respect of using gross earnings, I did not object to this and I understand why that might be the basis on which it would be done. I said simply that where there are other features of someone’s employment terms, particularly employer pension contributions—someone might have lower pay but a good employer pension contribution—to try to force them away from those would not make any sense. I am sure that is not necessarily in the Minister’s mind, but those sorts of issues are associated with the capacity that is needed to make these evaluations. They would mark a departure for Jobcentre Plus and providers.
We remain concerned about providers. I understand that we may be close to negotiating the next round of contracts and that it can be addressed in those, but I think we would hang on to the point that, as it is currently structured, there is the potential for real conflict where providers are remunerated on getting people into work—at least 16 hours a week, I think—and keeping them in work. What in-work conditionality will do, if the noble Lord says it has to be done outside the work programme, is take people off that scheme, possibly before they have enabled the provider to earn their full remuneration for keeping them there long enough. It is those sorts of conflicts with which we have some difficulties.
I think that we have given this a good airing. I hope that we have put down a marker about our concerns, and certainly our concerns about taking up a framework for legislation. We know that this type of legislation inevitably has a framework basis to it, but with something so unformed and in many respects as vague as this, it is quite difficult for us to say that we will support it. That is why I return to my point that we may look for some sort of sunset provision here in order to see how it all works out in practice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I shall speak also to Amendments 51CEA and 51CDB. I start with the latter. This started out as a simple probing amendment, but the more we looked at it, the more we considered that it had wider implications. Clause 16 deals with work preparation requirements. A claimant can be subjected to work preparation requirements if they have limited capability for work. A limited capability for work is defined in Clause 38 and will be determined in accordance with regulations. For a start, can the Minister confirm that the regulations will reflect the work capability assessment as updated by the Harrington reviews? We will of course have an opportunity to discuss this in greater depth when we reach the clause, but for the present, our understanding is that universal credit will adopt existing and emerging criteria which, among other things, differentiate between those with limited capability for work and those with limited capability for work-related activity. The latter would currently fall into the support group for the purposes of ESA and not be subjected to work-related requirements of the universal credit by virtue of Clause 19. Those not falling into either category would currently fall within the scope of JSA and, for universal credit purposes, be subject to work search and work availability requirements. Claimants under the universal credit subject to work preparation requirements cannot be subject to any other work-related requirements—other than a work-focused interview, of course.
The issue we probe is the nature of work placements, of work experience and the extent to which that encompasses activity currently accepted as beyond work-related activity or work preparation and is equivalent to the world of work. In short, is the Bill extending what have hitherto been the boundaries of work-related activity? Clause 54 suggests that it does, as, for ESA purposes, it adds work placements and work experience to the definition of work-related activity in the Welfare Reform Act 2007. Why is that change proposed? The WCA process seeks to differentiate between those currently fit for work and those who are not but who can move closer to the labour market. Can the Minister give us more detail of what is encompassed within work placements and work experience and the essential difference between those and work itself? We are aware that mandatory full-time work experience was to be tested as a result of the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2009, but those provisions related to those required to meet the jobseeking conditions. Has any testing been done with those not subject to the JSA regime; and, if so, under which provisions? Is it envisaged that work placements and work experience will be time limited? If so, what time period is envisaged?
How will that operate within the work programme? Are providers currently precluded from imposing work placements and work experience on those not subject to the JSA regime? Does work placement for 16-plus hours a week which goes on to become a more permanent job count towards the outcome for which providers are remunerated? Can the Minister confirm that the same type of protection for, say, lone parents and those with caring responsibilities will be applied for work preparation requirements as for those who are subject to all work-related requirements?
What assurances can the Minister give that activity to meet work placement requirements will not squeeze out opportunities for claimants to attend skills assessments and to undertake training? What sort of quality assurances will be sought by Jobcentre Plus or providers in respect of those offering work placements and work experience, especially to avoid a constant churn of individuals in place of permanent paid jobs? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Having said that, I have not spoken to the other two amendments in this group—Amendments 51CDA and 51CEA. These are both probing amendments as well. As we have noted, Clause 16 is concerned with work preparation requirements and in individuals subject to such requirements if they have limited capability for work. The requirement is for them to undertake particular actions. Included in the actions that might be specified is “improving personal presentation”. It is presumed that this would encompass such activities as CV writing and presentation skills but we wonder if the Government have anything else in mind.
Clause 17 refers to “work search” and Clause 17(3)(c) lists as one of the actions which might be specified,
“creating and maintaining an online profile”.
The briefing pack indicates that this is to facilitate job matching and making applications. It says:
“We expect that the new IT systems underpinning Universal Credit will support effective monitoring of work search activity. We expect to establish an online portal where claimants can set up their own ‘profile’. The system will provide claimants with access to job vacancies (including jobs automatically matched to the claimant’s profile) and the ability to … search for work and we anticipate the system will provide advisers with information and updates as to what the claimant has done”.
What training will be available to support claimants who will be less adept at using this technology to ensure that they have equal access to job applications? I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
I shall speak briefly in relation to the third of the amendments that has been put forward to Clause 17—that about, on page 8,
“creating and maintaining an online profile”.
I can see the merits of having that available but it might become an imposition. Many people who may be looking for work would be scared stiff of that approach, particularly the older ones or those who have restricted abilities. To be imposing or suggesting that this is a requirement surely should not be written on to the face of a Bill. I would be glad to hear the Minister’s justification for it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly there are circumstances where the main barrier to an individual getting work is an inability or reluctance to interface with online systems. They may need some pressure, because people sometimes do need pressure. We find that mandatory processes get much higher outputs that voluntary ones in many cases. In those circumstances, I can imagine that outright refusal could earn a sanction. However, it will not be used in circumstances where clearly it is not appropriate or where there is a genuine inability to use those services. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation but I would like to press him on a few points. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, concerning the online profile. The Minister said that this would not be imposed on somebody, but if it is going to be such a valuable tool to help people into the labour market there is still the residual question of what support is going to be given to people who do not have the innate ability.
Lord Freud
At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, saying that we have not developed the whole system, I should say that it has not sprung, like Athena out of Zeus’s head, fully formed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that and I understand his explanation of personal presentation. However, I press him on issues of work experience and work placement, because I do not believe that he Minister dealt with the question I posed about Clause 54, where an amendment to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 states:
“The reference to activity in subsection (7) includes work experience or a work placement.”
That adds something to that description, which presumably is done for a purpose. We would all, I am sure, recognise the benefit of work experience and work placements; but the issue is the extent to which those people who have limited capability for work, but are capable of work-related activity, can be caused to undertake them. That would be a departure from the current position. Are those part of what ESA claimants can be encouraged to do? I am trying to understand what the distinction between those and work is. When we debated issues of work for benefits under, I think, the Welfare Reform Act 2009, we debated workfare and the benefits or otherwise of all of that—generally otherwise—and the extent to which that was close to or tied up with work placements and work experience. If those issues relate to those who are fit for work, that is one thing; but is there not a risk that, under this legislation, we are importing that into another group, after those people have gone through the WCA assessment? That is my concern.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly preparing for work shades across a number of aspects. Perhaps the most interesting area here is the way that some work providers in the work programme actually help people. One of provider actually sets up the whole experience of work in its own operation. The actual experience of work for people who are in the WRAG group, if it is properly controlled in terms of work experience and work placement—I know the noble Lord will have concerns on this—and does not become a work substitute, is part of the building-up for that person; just as developing some skills would be. That could be an immensely valuable stepping stone for people, and that is the stepping stone we are aiming to introduce in this legislation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that point, and I think we share an understanding of the benefits of those sorts of arrangements. However, we are here introducing a term that has hitherto largely been attached to those who are in work, without any protections around it. In so far as work placements can effectively be the same as work—at least at one end of the spectrum—what is to stop providers putting people in the WRAG group through that process, and thereby effectively causing them to work, when the designation under the WCA is that they should not be in that group?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I cannot write in protections today but I give the assurance that this measure is intended to be a building block for the individual, not a substitute for work. I will think about how we can make that absolutely clear to offer comfort in that regard. I might be able to do that through a formal statement. I want noble Lords to be absolutely clear that this measure is a supportive element. It is not designed to be anything but supportive in allowing the claimant to take key steps to get back into the workplace.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for those comments and look forward to a fuller response on the protections later, as I remain concerned that we are opening a gate as regards people not being required to undertake work. This is effectively a step in that direction, if not in some instances a step into it. There are issues about how those protections might be organised. If we are going down the route of work placements, what assurances do we have in respect of providers of those work placements that they are not simply using this measure to churn staff and not do what they should do, which is to employ them properly in the first place? However, perhaps those issues can be dealt with further down the track, given that the Minister has given an undertaking to see how he can provide us with assurances in that regard. Having said that—
Lord Freud
Yes, soothe fears but also put this matter into context. We are essentially importing the existing arrangements, subject to the work experience issue that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised. We have drawn up an illustrative list. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to a draconian power. That is the structure that we have imported into this Bill. That structure has been debated thoroughly by many noble Lords in this Room over a number of Bills, so we are not trying to do anything dramatically new here, albeit with a nudge towards work experience. I said to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that I would make absolutely clear what the protections are and how we intend to run the system. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is looking at the whole thing as if it was a dramatically new and draconian way of doing things, but it is not. We are importing the existing methodology into the context of the universal credit.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My noble friend says that it is all my fault; I am not sure I ever introduced anything like this, but perhaps she did.
The key issue here is that the requirements are not necessarily blanket impositions on individuals, and where they are particularly beneficial there is support for those who are not able, without that support, to benefit from them. Otherwise they could be excluded from some job opportunities.
We have given these amendments a good run through. I look forward to the follow-up from the Minister, but beg leave to withdraw.
“( ) The actions and time specified under subsections (2) and (3) shall be determined following consultation with the claimant, and shall take account of any activity already undertaken which contributes to gaining experience, skills and aptitude for work.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will be brief. The amendment is intended to ensure that actions taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to work preparation requirements are determined after consultation with the claimant, and take account of activity the claimant is already undertaking which contributes to gaining experience, skills and aptitude for work.
Reflecting on our deliberations at the last Committee sitting, I should stress that this should involve consultation. It does not have to be a process of agreement, although hopefully it would be. This has special relevance in relation to volunteering. For example, we have had material, as I am sure other noble Lords have, from an organisation called Catch22, which refers to its intensive volunteering programmes with young people. They contribute to preparing young people for work.
We acknowledge that Jobcentre Plus should not be required to take account of every pastime or whim of individual claimants, but structured programmes, such as the volunteering opportunities identified, appear helpful. It must be better to work with the grain of such activity. That is all that the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, work preparation requirements will be imposed only where it is appropriate in the circumstances of the claimant. This will always involve a discussion between an adviser and the claimant, to determine any barriers to work and the steps required to address them. Where a claimant has already taken steps to improve their experience, skills and aptitude for work, this will of course be reflected in the requirements placed on them.
We will ask claimants only to do things that we believe will make it more likely that they will move into work. Asking them to go on a course to gain skills that they already have, for example, would be a waste of the claimant’s time and, indeed, of our scarce resources. We therefore agree with the spirit of this amendment. We disagree on whether it is necessary to put it into primary legislation. We do not have provisions of this kind in legislation now, and, similarly, we do not think it appropriate for universal credit.
On the volunteering point, clearly we have expanded or enlarged the opportunity for work search claimants to volunteer, as long as it does not affect their ability to continue to search for work. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his reply and will certainly withdraw the amendment. One point pressed on us was that if there is a recognition that volunteering programmes can be beneficial, perhaps that could be recognised by Jobcentre Plus in the other programmes that it is structuring for individuals. There have been suggestions that sometimes people slip out of volunteering programmes because they cannot keep the commitments, because they have work-focused interviews or other mandatory activity.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt here as I am interested in volunteering, having been a volunteer in various fields myself, as I suspect most of us in this room have at one time or another. Volunteering strikes me as a way of getting work experience—not necessarily but it could be—and therefore is to be most definitely applauded.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I agree with that and I am sure that we all would. I suppose it depends a little bit on the precise programme and activity, but the point is not to lose that opportunity for individuals who are already undertaking it because Jobcentre Plus is imposing other requirements with clashing commitments, meaning that people have to drop out of the programmes. That was a particular point that was pressed on us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 51CEC and 51CEE in this group, which probe Clauses 17 and 18. These clauses cover claimants who are subject to all work-related requirements. Clause 17 deals with work search requirements, Clause 18 with work availability requirements. Clause 17 sets down actions which the Secretary of State can require of a claimant, and also limitations that can be placed on those actions. Such limitations can include restrictions to work in particular locations. Our amendment requires the limitations to specifically include,
“consideration of the length and expense of the claimant’s travel”.
A similar issue arises in respect of the work availability requirement.
As we discussed, the conditionality applies to those out of work and also to those in work. Our briefing note suggests that regulations will make the default position that claimants should look for work that is within one and a half hours’ travel time of their home. This makes a handy headline in the national press to show how tough the Government are on the growing numbers of unemployed. I understand also that it reflects arrangements under the existing JSA regime, after a period.
For a start, we contend that the limitations should have regard to cost as well as journey times and that this should be reflected in the regulations and spelled out in claimant commitments. One and a half hours each way is about the time of my journey to Westminster—oh, for the ministerial car—at a cost of more than £100 a week. Individuals on low pay with no long-term job security would not necessarily be in a position to get the cheapest tickets even if the best deals were readily discernible. Of course, the cost of travel from home to work has to be met out of taxed earnings. Journey times will not always be regular, especially in rural areas. They are not inevitably aligned with the hours of a job: five minutes extra at work can mean an hour’s wait for the next bus. It is understood that the Government recognise the need for flexibility in these matters but see the non-application of sanctions as the route to providing it. Is this correct and, thinking about it, is it an appropriate way to proceed?
We get an insight into how the Government are dealing with this by looking at the illustrative claimant commitment that has been provided to us. Jack Smith’s job goal is to be secure in work as a plumber, earning at least £8 an hour, full-time, within one and a half hours of his home. It also says that if he does not find this kind of work within eight weeks, his job goal will be reviewed and he may be required to widen it, and presumably widen his travel times as well. There is no recognition that cost could be an issue, but the prospects of widening the job goal are included in this illustrative claimant commitment.
Perhaps we may ask what the Government intend on this. It brings us to a wider point. The Government have argued the case for universal credit in terms of simplicity and demonstrably ensuring that people are better off in work. We recognise that it is difficult to have a system that inevitably has some national parameters, so our amendment is an individual underpin that ensures that no one can be made worse off under these provisions by taking up any particular paid work. Clearly, regulations would have to flesh out some definitions of “worse off”, but the calculation would have to encompass costs as well as income, particularly costs around childcare and caring. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend in particular on Amendment 51CEC, which is about the cost of travel. Too often and too easily we assume a London model, with the Tube, regular bus services and so on; although even there, lone parents may find it difficult to access work in the way that they would like. However, in a county like Norfolk, where many villages have a bus service twice a day, you have a very different story. In Norfolk you have some of the lowest wage rates and some of the highest car ownership rates in the country; but those cars are battered, second-hand jalopies, which are taken by him to get to work, leaving her—usually—with the children and finding it very difficult to do anything except use a bicycle. The result is that it is very difficult for the second earner in a family, or—even more pertinently—a lone parent, to cope with travel to work if there is no job available for her in the local village.
We are expecting a lone parent to work 20 to 25 hours per week. She has two children, one of whom has to be delivered to a childminder and the other to the local school, but she has no transport apart from her feet. Finally, after that, she has somehow to get to a job of her own, and she has to do that again at 3 pm or 3.30 pm. It is almost impossible to find a job between those two hours in the locality, let alone further afield, given that she has to allow for her travel time. I remember one lone parent telling me that she calculated that the school bus picked up the children of the next-door village 40 minutes earlier than it picked up the children of her village; so she used to walk her child about two miles to the next-door village in order to put the child on the school bus, which would act as a form of childminder. That lone parent, with a great deal of ingenuity, managed to get to her job for its 9 am start. She was able to do so because the two villages were within walking distance of each other, but there is a real problem here. I think those of us who live in London or cities have no sense of just how isolated those villages can be.
However, the work requirement will apply to women, both lone parents and second earners, in a situation where there is no public transport, no private transport, a bicycle that you cannot actually take a small child on—let alone two children—except with some degree of difficulty and therefore there is only feet. I suggest to the Minister that it requires enormous juggling skill even to hold down a part-time job. Sometimes the jobcentre that the person has to travel to is not even in the whole of a rural district but may be 20, 30 or 40 miles away. I hope that jobcentre advisers will take all that into account when deciding what is reasonable for that lone parent or woman—and it is usually the woman who is the main child carer—in that situation. I ask the noble Lord to be sensitive to those issues, not because there is any lack of commitment but because of the sheer, simple, practical, logistical difficulties such women may face.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I was finishing my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We are fixing a broken system in structural terms so that the benefit system which currently does not reward work will now do so. There will be a consistent taper and more generous disregards, so this is a big move. One can overcomplicate it but that is a sterile debate which we do not need to go into.
I shall turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the importance of how skilled Jobcentre Plus advisers are. This is an important point and one that the noble Baroness will have recognised from her time in the department. We are now positioning Jobcentre Plus advisory services as a profession with a clear career path, accredited learning and ongoing professional development while delivering to a set of standards recognised as best in class. The learning programme for Jobcentre Plus advisers is regularly updated to reflect changes in policy. This ensures that they have up to date skills to deal with any claimant interaction and supports them in making relevant and appropriate decisions in individual cases.
We are making sure that a range of supportive products, guidance, assessment tools and management frameworks are produced to assist understanding and aid delivery of a more personalised service. As I said the other day, the satisfaction of claimants is now running at 88 per cent, and clearly the objective is to get that figure as high as we possibly can.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I think he would have heard the issues about difficulties with travel and costs from my noble friend Lady Hollis, my noble friend Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We take the point that these things need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and that there will be elements of discretion and judgment in that, but my noble friend Lady Hollis pressed on the issue of training. I do not know how hot the news is that the Minister has just given us, but the professionalisation of Jobcentre Plus is to be welcomed. Is he going to tell me that he started this a couple of years ago?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is a good move, because it is important. However, I do not think I can let the noble Lord get away with the constant assertion that the current system that they are seeking to replace by universal credit does not reflect the fact that work can pay. Overwhelmingly, is it not the case that it does? It may be that a very complicated calculation has to be gone through in order to prove it. I accept entirely that simplification of how to deal with the in-work, out-work issue is to be welcomed and is something we support. However, I do not think it is right to say that, overwhelmingly, work under the current system does not pay.
I would hang on to the point that if there is to be discretion in the system, then why is there not protection at the individual level so that someone cannot be forced to undertake work that would make them worse off? Is there going to be some reassurance at the individual level? There can be regulations which have appropriate caveats around timing issues; it is not beyond the wit of the Government to do that. In all of this change and uncertainty which still has to be resolved in many areas, would it not be reassuring to individuals that if it was clear that they would be worse off, they could not be forced down a path? That seems entirely reasonable to me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I wonder if I could come in on this. I absolutely see the dilemma and I can quite understand why you may want someone to start in on something in the hope and expectation that a year down the line, that entry into low-paid work will have paid off. I put it to the noble Lord—I think he might be horrified by the possible complexity of it, but I have been looking at the additional material and trying to get my head around how disregards work—that the disregard is relatively modest for a single young person. I wonder, following the point made by my noble friend—I can see already that there may be too much downside to this and the arguments against it—whether the Minister could look at the issue of whether in such circumstances you could adjust the disregard to ensure that, even where it does not appear to pay, you could construct it so that at least someone is not worse off through working until the point at which the hoped-for job progression that we all want to see has taken them into the pathway. I would ask the Minister to take this away. It may be that this is too complicated, but making someone worse off is going to be hard to defend, is it not?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord makes a fair point and we will be perfectly happy to pick up the discussion on these issues when we debate the clause. However, the noble Lord for his part might like to recognise a couple of suggestions that have come forward. He might like to add them to the list of things that will be included in the pilots. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other two amendments in this group. They are straightforward probing amendments that refer to Clause 19, which is entitled:
“Claimants subject to no work-related requirements”.
We discussed previously that claimants would fall primarily in that section if they have limited capability for work or for work-related activity; if they have regular and substantial care responsibilities for a severely disabled person; or if they are responsible carers for children under the age of one. However, subsection (2)(d) provides for a situation where,
“the claimant is of a prescribed description”.
Subsection (3) goes on to say that:
“Regulations under subsection (2)(d) may in particular make provision”,
in respect of “hours worked”, “earnings or income”, and,
“the amount of universal credit payable”.
Subsection (4) states that regulations made under subsection (3) may,
“in the case of a claimant who is a member of the couple, make provision by reference to the claimant alone or by reference to the members of the couple together … make provision for estimating or calculating any matter for the purpose of the regulations”.
We have moved this amendment in light of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which said in respect of those powers:
“We do not regard the first time affirmative procedure as necessarily inappropriate but the House may wish to be satisfied by the Minister that the exercise of this power on the first occasion will sufficiently define the Government’s approach, and that subsequent uses of the power will make only minor adjustments”.
I shall focus particularly on the latter part of that statement. The Government’s response states that it is the intention of the Minister,
“that the key principles will be established on first use. In respect of 19(2)(d) we are providing draft regulations”—
I think we now have those—
“setting out the circumstances which would lead to a claimant being in the no-work related requirements group. In respect of 19(3) and (4), when the regulations are debated, we will be able to set out how the work-related threshold will be set”.
Therefore, we need to wait for that, although we touched on some of the issues earlier. Will the Minister take this opportunity to deal more fully with the request of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in particular the issue relating to subsequent uses of the power being focused only on minor adjustments? I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I thank my noble friend for that, although I think in practice paragraph (d) allows a Government not to impose conditionality. This measure protects the individual. Of course, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s suspicion that the measure might overrestrict what another Government might do, which would not favour getting people into work. I am sorry; that was meant to be a joke.
Let me come back to the matter in hand. Given that we expect the first use to set the principles and to remain broadly unchanged, I hope I can assure noble Lords that affirmative for the first use is appropriate. We have set out how we intend to use this power. We define a threshold, as we have set out in our note, and add in the additional groups, as in the draft regulations. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we do not expect significant changes to this. For this reason, I ask him to withdraw this particular amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that reply. As we discussed earlier, we understand the need for the sort of thresholds that are envisaged here, and why they are there. We also understand the need for scope for a further category of claimants who will be subject to no work-related requirements at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right that this is a fairly broad power. I would not put it in quite the terms that the noble Lord does, and I am not sure why, if he envisages that there may be a different Government in the future, it might not be made up of people on this side of the Chamber, although perhaps that is a debate for another day.
This was raised because we wanted to focus on the issue that subsequent uses of the power will only make minor adjustments—since that was what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee were seeking in the noble Lord’s answer—particularly in relation to thresholds of hours-worked earnings, and the amount of universal credit payable. If the assurance is that it will only move in a minor way from the starting position, then it addresses precisely the issue that we were probing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Regulations shall prescribe how these regulations would operate, and impact on members of a couple.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
This is another set of amendments that are probing amendments only, and should be straightforward for the Minister. It may be easier for him to commit to write. The probe is about getting clarity on conditionality and couples. It relates to the whole hierarchy of the circumstances where there is no work-related requirement, there are work-focused interview requirements, work preparation, work search and work availability.
We understand that the principle is that each member of a couple will have an independent conditionality determined according to their circumstances, although there will be situations—for example, for couples with young children between the ages of five and 12—where couples can nominate a principal carer to be treated as a lone parent for conditionality purposes. That seems to be the situation as I understand it, even in circumstances where the one with the more onerous conditionality requirements can opt for that position. As we discussed earlier, this is notwithstanding that the joint income of the couple is taken into account; for example, in determining whether the conditionality threshold is reached. Sanctions will apply on an individual basis but obviously will be withheld from the couple claim.
There are doubtless all sorts of other nuances in this. I am just keen to get clarity on all of those things. If it is easier for the Minister to write, so be it but if he has got something there, that would be good. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, given the time, rather than try to rush the next amendment, instead of writing I will go through the answers on this probing amendment.
As we increase support to make work pay, it is right that, where they are able, individual claimants do everything they reasonably can to find or prepare for work. In the current system, the support people can access and the requirements they have to meet depend to too great an extent on the benefit they or their partner claim. In the out-of-work benefits it is often the case that one member of a couple makes the claim and will be subject to conditionality. But their partner is not really considered and is not subject to any meaningful conditionality; for example, the partner of an ESA claimant may be fully capable of work but we do not ask them to take steps to find employment. Clearly this cannot be right.
Under universal credit we want to change this. We want to encourage and support all claimants who can work to take all reasonable steps to do so. Consequently, under universal credit conditionality will be applied to claimants on an individual basis. We will be able to ask each member of a couple, in a benefit unit that falls under the conditionality threshold, to meet work-related requirements. These will be tailored in line with their personal capability and circumstances. This includes taking account of any physical or mental conditions or caring responsibilities an individual may have.
Where a couple have children, they will be able to choose a nominated carer who will have access to the same limitations to requirements as a lone parent; for example, where the child is under five the nominated carer will fall into the group subject to a work-focused interview requirement only. Where they are work-ready, the other member of the couple will fall into the group subject to all work-related requirements and be expected to look and be available for work. As indicated in the policy briefing note published on work search and availability requirements, a couple may choose not to nominate, allowing scope for couples to share childcare and work responsibilities.
We are carefully considering the detail of how the nomination process will be implemented and, where necessary, we have scope to draft regulations. However, we do not believe any additional regulations are necessary to operate a conditionality regime where requirements are applied to claimants as individuals. To try and spell out in legislation all the permutations of different couples’ requirements would be complicated and inflexible. I hope I have explained the context of this adequately. If there are other issues, we can go to writing but I thought it was worth getting the core of this on the record. On this basis, I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.