HL Deb 08 March 1988 vol 494 cc633-44

7.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are all agreed, I am sure, that someone who is responsible for his or her own unemployment should not be able to draw the same amount of benefit as someone who has the misfortune of being out of work through no fault of their own, so the draft order is a simple one. It will, if the House approves it, further extend the current maximum 13-week period during which someone who brings about his or her own unemployment may be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit. Disqualification arises where a claimant for benefit has left a job voluntarily without just cause, refused a suitable job vacancy, lost a job through misconduct, failed to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity of job training or failed without good cause to carry out official recommendations to help him or her find suitable employment.

The Employment Bill presently under consideration in your Lordships' House extends disqualification to people who lose a place on an approved training scheme through misconduct or who leave such a place voluntarily without good cause and also to those who refuse without good cause to apply for or to accept such a place. The maximum period of disqualification is presently 13 weeks. The draft order increases it to 26 weeks. The principle of disqualification is not new. It has been a characteristic of unemployment insurance since 1911 and was confirmed by Beveridge in his now often quoted report. It has been followed by successive governments since. I should stress, my Lords, that we are talking about a maximum. Adjudication authorities determine the appropriate period in the light of all the circumstances. We also intend that anyone who is disqualified for benefit on the grounds of voluntary unemployment will have any income support to which he or she may be due reduced for the same period. Again that principle is not new; it has existed ever since the introduction of national assistance in 1948.

The current maximum period of 13 weeks was increased from six weeks in 1986. One would have expected that the percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit in situations of voluntary unemployment would have fallen after that increase. This did not happen. The number of disqualifications rose at a time when there was more work around and overall claims for benefit from unemployed people were dropping significantly. The Government therefore concluded that more effective measures are required to discourage voluntary unemployment and to encourage people to think and act responsibly. Hence the present draft order that we are considering tonight.

I emphasised that the maximum period that I have described is just that, a maximum. Disqualifications are not imposed as a matter of course and without regard to individual circumstances. Decisions on entitlement to benefit and on whether or not there should be a disqualification are taken by the independent adjudicating authorities. The adjudication system is longstanding and is much respected. Decisions are reached by applying the law, both statute law and case law, built up over the years, to the circumstances of the case. Inquiries are made of the former employer and the claimant has the chance to comment and to offer his or her own account of what happened. The adjudication officer then decides whether disqualification is appropriate and, if so, for how long it should last. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's decision either as to disqualification itself or to the length of disqualification has the right of appeal to an independent social security appeal tribunal and from there on a point of law to a social security commissioner. In view of the quite proper independence of the adjudicating authorities neither I nor any other minister or departmental official can influence or interfere with their decisions.

This order is concerned with disqualification for unemployment benefit. However, as noble Lords will be aware, and as I mentioned earlier, if in a case of voluntary unemployment a claim is made for supplementary benefit or, from next month, income support, entitlement to that benefit is reduced. The normal rule applies a deduction of 40 per cent. to the claimant's personal benefit rate. Amounts for dependants are not reduced. The deduction is by 20 per cent. if any member of the household is either pregnant or seriously ill and the claimant's capital does not exceed £100, to be increased to £200 from next month.

There is nothing new in principle in this draft order. All it does is to increase the maximum period of disqualification that can be imposed. The consistent thrust of the Government's philosophy is positive. Major initiatives in the area of employment and training are helping people to find jobs and to undertake a suitable training which will enable them to return to employment. The benefit system should not offer an alternative where useful training or employment are available. We must discourage voluntary unemployment and the purpose of the order is to do just that. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved. [17th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, this is an important Motion, and I shall take a little time to say why I think that is so. I was doing some homework the other night when I came across an interesting quotation from Sir Winston Churchill when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1909 and this question was being discussed. He said: I do not feel convinced that we are entitled to refuse benefit to a qualified man who loses his employment through drunkenness. He has paid his contributions; he has insured himself against the facts of unemployment, and I think it arguable that his foresight should be rewarded irrespective of the cause of his dismissal … I do not like mixing up moralities with mathematics … Our concern is with the evil, not with the causes, with the fact of unemployment, not with the character of the unemployed". Churchill, with his usual amplitude of mind, was making a statement with which I do not think we would wholly agree nowadays, because it was decided that there should be a penalty for people who became voluntarily unemployed. That was an insurance limitation rather than a punishment for people who had left their jobs.

All parties agreed at first that there should be a six-week suspension of benefit. It was increased to 13 weeks. Now, for some reason which I cannot fathom we have an increase to six months. I have a series of questions for the Minister. What evidence is there of an increase in voluntary unemployment between when the limit was six weeks and when it became 13 weeks? My understanding is that in the quarter ended September 1986 there were 113,000 cases. By June 1987, that figure had decreased to 98,000. If the numbers are decreasing, why is the penalty being increased?

In another place the Minister said that the penalty was being increased because job opportunities were increasing. That is not true of every locality. Why should we penalise people who live in an area of high unemployment because it is thought that people in other parts of the country can more easily find jobs? Does the Minister have regional figures to make clear why the Government are doing that? I hope the Government have in mind housing problems. People may lose their jobs, voluntarily or otherwise, in one area. They would go somewhere else to look for a job if only they could find somewhere to live. Why has 26 weeks been chosen? What is special about 26 weeks except that it is six months, which doubles the period of withdrawal of unemployment pay?

Will the Minister tell the House about the length of waiting lists for appeals? Is the number of adjudication officers being increased? How many appeals have been in favour of the claimant? I understand that in 1985 the chief adjudication officer's report found that one in four decisions were defective; in 1986, one in three were defective. Those figures were based on random cases.

After many years of experience in an area of great difficulty in central London, I can assure your Lordships that many people lack the confidence and experience to appeal. They take the bad luck as one of the discouraging features of their lives. I am sure that there are many people who have not appealed who might have won had they done so.

How much will the Government save as a result of these new penal laws? Will the National Insurance contributions of the person concerned be credited? What is the average time between registering an appeal and its hearing? I understand that it is about 15 weeks. If that is the average, there must be people who suffer for a much longer period. If a person is deprived of unemployment pay for at least 15 weeks, what happens to him in the meantime? What consideration are the Government giving to people who may be trapped in unsuitable jobs with poor conditions, or who have personal problems about which they may be reticent?

The question of voluntarily dismissing oneself is complicated, because many people are shy about explaining their problems. They have other strictures to face. There may be difficult domestic circumstances. I came across an example of a man with two children whose wife had left him, and so he left his job to look after his children. The party of the family now says that he has to lose unemployment benefit because he voluntarily dismissed himself.

There is evidence of a policy of penalisation and coercion of the unemployed. Instead, the Government should look at the causes of people leaving their jobs. Why are the Government not concerned about whether there are bad conditions, inadequate preparation at school or afterwards, or personal strains in a job?

Employers can be capricious. I have come across cases where a person has been offered a new job and so leaves his present job. The employer then changes his mind and says that he is not taking on that person for some unknown reason. That person then becomes a victim of the new laws. There is danger that people who are too active as shop stewards may be made to feel that the sooner they leave a job the better.

The situation may be difficult for people who are not articulate or who may have language difficulties. One needs to look sensitively and carefully at the extent to which their leaving was voluntary, and whether it was due to circumstances which they found unbearable. That sympathetic attitude is missing at present. Unless there are many more officers to take appeals and a quicker way to deal with them, there will be great hardship.

It is easy to use the words "leaving employment without good cause". Who can work out what are good causes? There cannot be a mathematical rule. The problem must be given the clearest and most sympathetic thought. It may be that to somebody the reason for leaving is frivolous, but sometimes reasons which seem frivolous to outsiders are very real to those who are concerned with them.

When the Government increased the six weeks' penalty to 13 weeks, can the Minister say whether there was a drop in the number of people who were deprived of benefit? If that did not reduce the numbers, why on earth should 26 weeks reduce them even more? I am not sure that that is the right way to measure voluntary unemployment. The number of weeks cannot be the basic reason. If a man cannot stand his job or if a woman cannot stand her job, the question whether he or she is going to be deprived of 13 weeks' benefit or 26 weeks' benefit cannot be the ultimate and decisive reason. I know that the Government are concerned about all these recalcitrant, shiftless scroungers, but if they have not been taught a lesson in 13 weeks, how will 26 weeks help?

There is another question which I have to ask. I do not apologise for taking this time because it affects thousands of people—I think over 400,000 people last year. What about constructive dismissal? Is it true that claims under this heading have to wait for about two years before they are processed? Is this not just a charter for bad employers? We are hearing a great deal about bad employees; I wish we could hear more from the Government about bad employers. If 13 weeks is enough punishment, why should six months be taken to carry out the Government's policy?

I have looked up the guide to the adjudication officers. The Ministry states to the officers who have to hear these appeals that conditions which prompt a claimant to leave his employment were known to him when he began the employment and he accepted it in spite of them; that he cannot turn the clock back and say he has just cause for leaving simply because the employment was unsuitable in the first place. I think that that is very harsh and unfair. When a man who has been unemployed for a long time seeks a job and the employer says: "Well, it will be like this and like that", a man desperate to get a job will be inclined to say, "All right, I'll put up with that". But then, after he has been there for a time, he finds that it is almost unbearable and he must leave. According to these instructions he is disqualified from unemployment benefit.

So I cannot think otherwise than that this is really an attack on the unemployed. I want to know how much money the Government will save. We are told that, although the man concerned might lose his benefit up to a certain 40 per cent., the family will still receive their benefits if they are so entitled. But you cannot separate a husband's money from that of the family. The fact is that the family's income will be less, for six months the children's feet will grow and the retail price index might go up or down, but there will be a diminution in the family's income. Therefore, this must be regarded as an attack by the Government on the unemployed and an insensitivity to their difficulties. On behalf of my noble friends I must say that I think that this is a totally disgraceful and unjustifiable measure. We very much regret it.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for explaining the content and purpose of this order. Nevertheless, I want to reinforce the arguments which have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.

The first point to bear in mind is that for 75 years the disqualification period for voluntary unemployment stood at six weeks. As recently as 1986 the present Government altered that to 13 weeks—more than doubling it. Now the Government come back to the House and say that they wish to increase it to 26 weeks, which is doubling it again. As the noble Lord himself mentioned in explaining the order, people who are disqualified if they are lucky enough to get supplementary benefit, lose 40 per cent. of their benefit unless there are special circumstances.

Why do the Government want to proceed with this? The only reason given is to discourage people from acting in a way which leaves them unnecessarily out of work. How will stiffer sanctions help, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asks. The Government seem to say, "Well, after we raised it last time it had no effect"—the noble Lord said that this evening—"so we must increase it further." But why, the noble Baroness asked, should it have any more effect than doubling it in 1986? I suppose the Government might reply to that, "We must do something; the numbers are increasing."

In another place on 1st March Mr. Portillo explained that the total number disqualified in the year to October 1986 was 414,000 and that to October 1987 the number was 420,000. That was a total increase of 6,000, which is an increase of 1.4 per cent. The Government will say "Ah, but the total number of claimants has fallen. In the first of those years, it was 5.35 million; in the second of those years it was 4.9 million." However we then have to look at the ratio between those disqualified and the total number of claimants. We find that in the first year it is 7.7 per cent. and in the second year it is 8.6 per cent. In other words, there has been a 0.9 per cent. increase. It scarcely seems that that small increase is justification for a stiffer sanction. In any case, the evidence suggests that the sanction has no effect on the numbers disqualified. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, explained to us, that is the experience of the increase to 13 weeks. Most claimants are unaware of the effect that leaving a job will have on their benefit. The social security policy inspectorate in a report on voluntary employment deductions in July 1983 said: Over three-quarters of the claimants we saw did not know before they left their jobs that their supplementary benefit would be reduced and, had they known, most said that the deductions would not have influenced their decision". So to lengthen the disqualification period is unlikely to effect the Government's aim, but it will cause extra hardship. I say that because living on 60 per cent. supplementary benefit, if you get it for six months, is a heavy burden for those legitimately caught by the rule. But many are caught without justification. Disqualification is implemented automatically before any evidence is gathered to support the decision.

A citizens' advice bureau manager in Cheshire has pointed out: In our area a 13-week suspension of unemployment benefit automatically applies in all cases other than those of redundancy. This is causing hardship for our clients and is quite unfair in particular circumstances. CABs throughout the country have reported that the maximum penalty is being imposed automatically as the norm. The noble Lord emphasised that we are talking about the maximum penalty but in much of the country that is being applied automatically as the norm. A social security commissioner in a recent disqualification case said: Adjudication officers … still seem to impose the maximum period in practically every case". There is a high incidence of wrong and unfair decisions. The chief adjudication officer reported in his annual report on adjudication standards in 1985 to 1986: 35 per cent. of misconduct decisions and 31 per cent. of voluntary leaving decisions are defective". The average waiting time for an appeal is 17.3 weeks. In other words, the present maximum disqualification period is over before the appeal is heard. The money may be recovered in due course but in the meantime the period of unjust privation has been endured.

So this provision is unlikely to achieve the Government's aim and is certain to cause greater hardship, much of it unjustifiable. Why, then, do the Government press ahead? Is it in order to get the cash saving? I understand that the increase of the maximum disqualification period to 13 weeks produced a cash saving of £25 to £30 million. How much will this measure produce in this way? Or are the Government wanting to reduce the scope of universal benefits such as unemployment benefit and put more people on to means-tested benefits? If that is the reason, I believe it is a very unsound one and the Government are moving down the wrong road I do not believe that the Government have justified the increase from six weeks before 1986 to 26 weeks now. I believe that the evidence suggests that voluntary unemployment disqualification is being applied in an indiscriminate fashion and without doing justice to individuals. It would be much more sensible for the Government to institute an inquiry into the working of the voluntary unemployment disqualification before going ahead with this order.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I wish briefly to make one or two comments. I wonder who the linguistic sadist was who coined the words "voluntary unemployment". I wonder whether the 1.3 million people who are long-term unemployed consider that they are voluntarily unemployed? Most of them, or a large proportion of them, were forced on to the dole queue and on to the supplementary benefit by the policies of the existing Government. To use the term "voluntary unemployed" is a complete butchery of language. It is a complete nonsense. People do not volunteer to go on to the dole queue. I think that the Government coined those words to suit their particular situation or to fit the bill on this occasion.

Let us make no mistake about it. This is part of the deliberate intention of the Government's policies. Some noble Lords will recall that a short time ago—I think it was in the penultimate Session of Parliament—we bitterly opposed the dissolution of such bodies as wage councils because they provided a somewhat reasonable minimum wage—I say only a somewhat reasonable minimum—for a great number of people in the service industries. That was removed quite arbitrarily by the Government. One of the instigators of fair wages councils and that kind of thing was a very distinguished ex-Prime Minister mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jeger—Winston Churchill.

There is no question that this provision is just a one-off and that it is being done in isolation. It is not being done in isolation. It is part of a particular policy of the Government to try and force people into very low paid jobs where the difference in some cases between their benefit entitlement and the remuneration for the job would be almost minuscule. This provision is being introduced to force people to take jobs on the basis that the Government are supposed to be creating real employment.

I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Banks, give £25 to £30 million as the saving when the last exercise was carried out. In terms of finance, that is postage stamp money. The newspapers are full again today of the tremendous sums of money that the Chancellor will have available to distribute in the Budget next week. He will not be distributing that money at the bottom end of the scale; if he were, the Government would not be indulging in this kind of tawdry action.

This provision hits at one of the most defenceless, one of the poorest sections of our community. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. To dare to inject into this matter the notion of voluntary unemployment is absolute nonsense. I do not suppose that we shall get any joy from the Minister. This is part of the Government's overall strategy. But it is yet another indication of where the Government have exacerbated the concept of two nations. Their action shows that they intend to create a wider division between the haves and the have-nots in society.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the draft order we have been debating has a role to play in encouraging people to think and act responsibly as well as providing a penalty for those who bear a measure of blame for their own lack of a job.

I should remind the House that we are debating this matter at a time when unemployment has fallen by roughly 550,000 in the past 12 months. The provision does not prevent anyone from seeking to better himself or herself or from leaving a job which he or she no longer finds congenial. But the important thing is that they should have full realisation of their future decisions.

Adjudication officers obtain information both from the claimant and from the employer about reasons for leaving. They decide then whether the situation is one of voluntary unemployment. I would say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that I do not know who coined the phrase "voluntary unemployment" on which he based his remarks. However, I am prepared to bet without further advice that it was not coined by anyone serving this Government. I think that it goes back many years before that.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, why are the Government persisting in the use of that phrase when there is no such thing as "voluntary unemployment"? People do not volunteer for unemployment. The overwhelming number of people who are unemployed in this country do not have any say or any choice in the matter.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if they have no say or no choice in the matter, this order would not apply to them. That is exactly the point.

As I have said, there is nothing new in encouraging people to act responsibly in finding another job before giving up the one they already have. Someone who contributes to his or her own unemployment without good reason should not expect to receive benefit immediately and without penalty. That would not be fair on other contributors to the insurance scheme.

Entitlement to benefit is not automatic solely on payment of a certain number of contributions or amount of money or following a certain period of employment. It is also dependent on the person having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid the contingency insured against.

We have first and foremost a duty to maintain ourselves and our families. The social security system is there to help those who cannot fulfil that duty. Its role is not, and should not be, to take over that duty when the individual is quite capable of fulfilling it himself.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made a most interesting and thoughtful speech. She questioned me on the rationale of this provision, as did the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I would confirm that from October 1986 to September 1987 there were 4,895,587 claims for unemployment benefit. From October 1985 to September 1986, there were 5,367,654 claims for the same benefit. Claims were therefore reduced significantly.

However, what actually matters is the number of disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, appreciated the fact that disqualifications over the same period increased from 413,389 to 420,654. I accept his next step in the mathematical argument that disqualifications as a percentage of claims increased from 7.7 per cent. to 8.59 per cent. However, I part company with the noble Lord when he speaks of that as being a 0.9 per cent. increase. In fact, the increase is 12 per cent.—in other words, an increase of roughly 1.9 per cent. on 7.7 per cent.

8 p.m.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I accept that in purely mathematical terms that is correct. However, let us suppose that the figure is 1 per cent. and is increased to 1.5 per cent. That would be an increase of 50 per cent. I imagine that the noble Lord would not set the alarm bells ringing because of that. Conversely, had the figure risen from 24 per cent. to 24.9 per cent., which is a comparable rise, I imagine that he would not have gone to panic stations in those circumstances. The question is whether the figure of 12 per cent. has any significance at all. I rather think that it does not.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I dispute that. The fact is that if there was an increase of 10 per cent. or more, I would immediately argue that the current sanctions or penalties, as the noble Baroness called them, were not working. That is the rationale for the order, as I explained in my opening speech.

It is refreshing to listen to particular cases. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for producing one of which she had personal knowledge. That case concerned a person with two children whose wife had left him. He therefore left work to look after the children. However, the noble Baroness did not finish the case. What matters is whether there was any abatement of unemployment benefit in that case and, if so, what abatement followed and what appeals are in progress as a result of that. I do not have the full facts and I should not like to comment further on that matter. It is important to have the full facts before one comments.

The noble Baroness inquired about regional figures for disqualifications. Those figures are not readily available and they will take some time to analyse. Even though levels of unemployment may vary regionally, we are not seeking to penalise anyone who is unemployed through no fault of his own. As I keep saying, it is only those who are voluntarily unemployed; although the noble Lord, Lord Dean, does not like that term and perhaps would prefer something like "constructively self-dismissed", which would be a bit of a misnomer.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, is the Minister suggesting as a substitute the word "malingering"? If he is, why does he not have the courage to say so instead of masking that word with "voluntary unemployment"?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, to me, voluntary unemployment means a condition into which people put themselves through no fault of their own, and I believe—

Baroness Jeger

Through no fault of their own?

Lord Skelmersdale

Through not fault of their own. I think that that definition will be acceptable to the House.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, the Minister, in explaining his position, has stood on his head. Perhaps he would like to correct that.

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords. I do not think that I have stood on my head. If I am to sit down at all on a long-term basis tonight, perhaps I may continue to answer the various points put to me, or at least as many of them as possible. I am sure that there will be one or two points which I miss, and I shall write to noble Lords who are concerned.

The employed labour force is estimated to have increased by 75,000 in the third quarter of 1987, which contributes to overall increases of 453,000 in the year to September 1987 and of slightly over 1½ million since March 1983. Also, the level of unemployment has gone down at a time when we have an increasing number of people in the labour force.

The noble Baroness went on to talk about the waiting lists for appeals. The legislation giving effect to income support is simpler than that relating to supplementary benefit. We expect that that will lead to a significant reduction in the delay before appeals are heard. The president of the social security appeal tribunals is responsible for the organisation of the tribunal's work. I understand that he agrees with that view.

So far as concerns delays in the hearing of appeals, the operation is as fast as it possibly can be. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that on a long-term basis claimants do not lose out if an appeal is successful. They get arrears of unemployment benefit and income support. They always have done, and it is right that they should.

As regards the increase in the number of disqualifications, perhaps I have dealt with that matter fairly fully. However, the amount of savings concerned all noble Lords. There will be savings which are estimated at up to £37 million in this case. But the main reason for change is that it is not in the public interest or in the interests of the individual to subsidise voluntary unemployment. The increase in voluntary unemployment has demonstrated the need for more effective measures both to penalise those who unnecessarily seek to claim public funds and to encourage people to take a responsible attitude towards maintaining themselves and their families.

I confirm that national insurance contributions are not credited during the period of disqualification. To award such credits would partly nullify the imposition of penalties. As regards the question of whether a husband's income is separated from that of the rest of the family, as I said in my opening speech the answer is yes.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, naturally spoke about the report of the Low Pay Unit, which criticised this proposal. We have listened to and learnt from what that unit has said and we shall naturally be monitoring the effects of the new longer maximum disqualification period. If noble Lords opposite are to be believed, it will not be long before we come back to the House with an order to reduce that period. If it works properly, I hope that we shall be in a position to do just that. However, as regards the report, Although I do not want to be drawn too much into the details of it, it says that one in three disqualifications are wrong and the evidence for that is said to be the Government's own figures. I am advised that there were some 1.8 billion decisions by adjudication officers on all questions of entitlement to unemployment benefit in 1986. About 36,000 decisions were appealed against and about 30 per cent. of the appeals went in the claimant's favour.

As regards defective decisions, the statistics quoted are based on a representative sample of cases examined by monitoring teams. Decisions that are recorded as defective may be so because it is considered that the evidence was incomplete rather than that the decision was wrong. Because of the small number of cases, a small change in that number will show up as a significant change in percentage terms.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, cross-questioned me about the maximum period being applied in all cases. Adjudication officers receive guidance from the chief adjudication officer, and he has emphasised that where disqualification of some kind is called for it is important to exercise a proper judicial discretion when deciding the appropriate period. Any aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal, and this is made quite clear in the letter to the applicant giving the decision in the initial appeal.

As I have made clear, at present sanctions seem to have had little or no effect in encouraging people to act more responsibly. Between 1981 and 1987 disqualifications imposed by adjudication officers went up by 20 per cent. although the number of claims rose by only 8 per cent. That was despite the increase in the maximum period from 13 to 26 weeks in October 1986. The operation of the new provisions will be monitored. The extension to 26 weeks gives more room for the adjudicating authorities to adjust the period of disqualification according to the extent to which they consider that there were good reasons for the individual to act, or fail to act, as he or she did. We expect that discretion to be carefully used. If it is not, I can imagine the howls of protest there will be from the Benches opposite, and I should add to those howls.

The chief adjudication officer's advice to local adjudication officers is that in each case a, sensible discretion has to be exercised in such a manner as the justice of the case requires. All the circumstances must be taken into account". He also points out that, the statutory authorities have a complete, unfettered discretion provided it is exercised judicially". It cannot be right for someone to slip unnecessarily into reliance on benefit. We hope that the provisions of this draft order will help to reverse the trend and give the right signal to everyone who might otherwise be tempted to behave irresponsibly. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I commend the order to the House.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I know I asked the Minister a number of questions, but before he sits down I should like to raise the subject of constructive dismissal. I am informed that appeals against constructive dismissal charges take about two years. This point is important to the people concerned. If the noble Lord is unable to answer me tonight I am sure that he will write to me, though I should have preferred to have his reply on the record of the proceedings of this House.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. That is the one point for which I did not come prepared this evening. If the noble Baroness wants this matter included in the record of the House I suggest that she puts down a Question for Written Answer, in which case it would be on the record.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.25 p.m.]