HL Deb 27 July 1989 vol 510 cc1623-33

3.25 p.m.

Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the three sets of regulations that are before your Lordships today-1 intend to speak to all three together—have a common thread. They all relate to the provision of social security benefits. They do, however, relate to two distinct aspects of benefit provision which, with the permission of the House, I intend to deal with separately. I should like to take first the community charge benefits regulations and then come on to the two sets of regulations dealing with the provision of benefits for the unemployed.

The community charge benefits regulations are an integral part of the community charge arrangements and they will ensure that the amount of community charge that people have to pay will be related to their ability to pay it. They will apply throughout Great Britain, and will replace the regulations currently in force in Scotland.

The community charge benefit scheme will be operated by levying authorities in Scotland and by charging authorities in England and Wales in accordance with the rules laid down in these regulations. The maximum rebate will be 80 per cent. of the amount that a person has to pay. This will mean that all charge payers have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the charge in the same way that all ratepayers now have to pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates. The Government are firmly of the view that everybody should be as aware of the cost of local authority services as they are of the benefits. The maximum rebate will be available automatically to everybody who is getting income support, and also to those people on equivalent incomes. People with incomes above their income support levels may be entitled to a rebate of less than 80 per cent. and the amount that they will get will depend upon three factors: their financial resources; their personal circumstances; and the amount of community charge they have to pay.

The way in which a claimant's rebate will be calculated will follow very closely the way in which rate rebate is calculated now. I trust that your Lordships will welcome the 15 per cent. taper, which is significantly more generous than the 20 per cent. taper now used in the rebating of rates.

Apart from that more generous taper, our objective in formulating the community charge benefit regulations has been to maintain alignment with the housing benefit regulations wherever practicable. This will make the arrangements easy for claimants to understand, and will also be helpful to the local authorities that will be administering the scheme. It will also maintain the overall simplification and alignment of the income-related benefits that we achieved in the 1988 reforms.

In commending these regulations to your Lordships, I should like to make clear the extent of our consultation since the autumn of 1987 with the local authority associations, and to express our gratitude for their co-operation. We have consulted formally with the associations and also with the Social Security Advisory Committee. The comments we received were helpful and constructive and a large number of them have been incorporated in the regulations that are now before us.

I turn now to the regulations dealing with the unemployed. Most of the provisions in these regulations stem from the powers taken in the 1989 Act. The matter is complicated by the need for two sets of regulations: one for unemployment benefit (the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989); the other for income support (the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989).

I think I should first point out to the House a very small misprint—a printed error in the published version of the income support amendment regulations. This was corrected in the version laid before the House but the copies that noble Lords have are wrong. In Regulation 6, new regulation 10A(3), the word "recorded" which appears in the fourth line of that paragraph should read "regarded". I apologise for that error and trust that it has not caused too much confusion.

The two areas which gave rise to most concern were the introduction of the new, actively seeking work condition and the new permitted period, which limits the time when an individual may, without a risk to his benefit, decline employment outside his usual occupation. We have repeatedly said that employment service staff will interpret these new provisions in the same fair and sensitive way in which they deal with the existing rules and regulations.

These regulations say that an unemployed person must, in any week, take those steps which are reasonable in his case and which offer him his best prospect of employment. That we feel is not unreasonable. However, to ensure that the test is applied in a sensitive and fair way we have laid down certain things which we think form a vital part of the picture. First, we have given examples of matters to which the adjudication officer should have regard in deciding what was reasonable in an individual claimant's case. Some of these are obvious: for example the claimant's skills, qualifications, abilities or any physical or mental limitations.

Similarly, he should have regard to how long he has been unemployed, his work experience, what jobs are available and where they are, and what he had done already to seek work. Others may be less obvious, but are nonetheless important. One example, which came out of our discussions in Committee, is the effect on job search if a claimant is homeless. The Committee discussions have also led us to specify that regard should be had to time spent on particularly worthwhile activities—for example, service as part-time fireman, lifeboatman or emergency workers, or attending outward bound or guide dog training courses.

Lastly, another group for whom concern was expressed in Committee was those spending time on vocational training or study, on voluntary work or in an employment or training programme. None of these activities will absolve the individual claimant totally from the need to seek work. We believe it wrong to do so since unemployment benefits are to support individuals seeking to return to the labour market. Nonetheless, all these factors can be weighed in considering either the amount of time which is spent in looking for work or the actual steps which the invividual claimant could be expected to undertake.

The regulations give examples of the types of step which a person may take. As we explained at an earlier stage, the list of examples is not exhaustive or exclusive. It is up to the individual claimant to decide how best to go about securing employment in his chosen field. The list suggests the most common ways of seeking work but any other equally or more meritorious steps will be taken into account.

A claimant will be expected to seek work every week. Currently most claimants attend the benefit office fornightly and that will not change.

There will be a number of circumstances in which an individual claimant may be deemed to be actively seeking work for the week. These include the first and last weeks of unemployment, when it may be unreasonable to expect a person to meet the condition.

During Committee there was a great deal of debate about replacing "refusal of suitable employment" with the concept of "refusing employment without good cause". The Act has removed the concept of the employment service having to prove that employment refused by a claimant was in fact "suitable". The onus will now be on the claimant to show that he had good cause for turning down employment. We think that this is a much needed change. But as it is a change we also feel that it is right for Parliament to lay down guidelines for deciding good cause so that claimants have an understanding of what to expect.

The concept of having good cause is not a new one. Current legislation allows a person to escape disqualification for unemployment benefit for turning down or failing to follow up an opportunity of employment if the adjudication officer decides that he had good cause. The adjudication authorities have built up a considerable body of case law but currently there is no guidance in regulations as to the meaning of "good cause".

The regulations before the House now specifically require the adjudication authorities 10 consider, in relation to a failure to follow up any job opportunity, whether the particular employment would be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's health or whether it would subject him to excessive physical or mental stress. Other matters which the adjudication authorities will be required to consider will include any sincerely-held religious or conscientious objections which the claimant may have to undertaking particular work and certain domestic circumstances which might make it unreasonable for him to accept a particular vacancy. The regulations provide that a person will not generally be able to show good cause unless his journey to work or training would take at least an hour.

A person who turns down a job on pay grounds will not be able to show good cause outside what the legislation calls the "permitted period" at the start of his claim if the job opportunity has been notified to him by the employment service.

The new Social Security Act provides for a permitted period at the start of a claim which allows a person up to 13 weeks in which to find work in his usual occupation, while avoiding disqualification for not accepting other employment. The regulations define how the permitted period is to be calculated. They also list the factors which will be taken into account by the adjudicating authorities when determining the length of that period. It will only be necessary to determine a permitted period formally where a person has refused work and the question of a benefit penalty arises. We do not think it appropriate to decide all cases in advance of any refusal because for most claimants it will never become an issue. The regulations ensure that, when a decision is sought, the adjudication officer will take account of the person's skills, qualifications and work experience.

The final point on this part of the regulations concerns "trial periods". This is a new concept which has been widely welcomed. It quite rightly recognises the concerns that affect people who have been out of work for some time. The regulations define the claimants who will have a right to benefit from this provision. The provision enables a person to escape a benefit sanction if he gives up a job from the sixth week up to the twelfth week of a trial period. This will apply to claimants who have neither worked nor been in full-time education throughout the 26 weeks before the day on which the new job starts.

The new Social Security Act changed the period in which a person who had received his full 312 days of unemployment benefit can requalify for a further period of benefit. The legislation enables the regulations to provide for an extension of the period in special circumstances. We have defined those as one which would, for reasons beyond his control, prevent the claimant from working.

There are a number of smaller issues that the regulations address. I will explain our intentions briefly for the benefit of those noble Lords who find many of the regulations somewhat impenetrable.

In order to deal with the problem of inconsistency between payments, called payments in lieu of notice and payments of compensation, the regulations will provide for the definition of all payments that are to be taken into account and the period that benefit may be affected. We are not seeking here to introduce a new restriction on the payment of benefit. Our purpose is to provide for uniformity of treatment.

We have always attempted to prevent abuse of the benefit system by claimants who break their unemployment benefit claim towards the end of their 312 days of benefit purely for the purpose of avoiding the requirement to requalify. The current regulations, however, provide too wide a definition of our intentions and, unfortunately, penalise some people whom we never intended to be caught. The new regulations make our intentions much clearer.

We have taken this opportunity as promised in December last year, to remove the additional qualifying conditions for seasonal workers claiming unemployment benefit. In future seasonal workers will be subject to the same conditions as all other claimants.

We have also provided for the addition of personal pensions to all references to occupational pensions. This reflects the fact that the new Social Security Act provides for personal pensions received by unemployment benefit claimants to be taken into account in deciding the level of benefit in exactly the same manner as occupational pensions.

The third set of regulations reflect the changes to unemployment benefit as they relate to the payment of income support. What I have said about the changes in the unemployment benefit amendment applies equally to the income support amendments.

These three sets of regulations represent a number of different changes to the provision of benefit. On the unemployment issues I hope that all noble Lords opposite will recognise that we have reflected in the regulations many of the concerns they voiced during the passage of the Social Security Bill through this House. The Committee discussions had considerable influence on the detailed provisions. I know that some will believe that we have not gone far enough to meet the needs or wishes of one group or another; but we have considered in great detail all the issues that were raised. We have declined to take them up only where to do so would have undermined our policy intention. I commend these regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not be bored if I add my congratulations on his appointment. I warn him that not often shall I be congratulating him. In fact, it would serve him right if today I went through every regulation in great detail. There are pages of them. But because these are his baptismal days I shall spare him.

However, I hope that the noble Lord will convey to those in authority that this House strongly objects to these regulations being laid only on 21st July and passed in the other place last night. I speak not only for Members on this side of the House. Now on the last day before the Recess we are presented with matters of great detail and concern. They are complex regulations and, in the noble Lord's words, they are often "impenetrable". Some are to come into force on 11th August and others on 9th October. That is not the way in which a responsible Government should deal with difficult matters or treat this House or the other place. We cannot amend the regulations; we can do nothing about them. The growing habit of government by regulation is pernicious. The fact that detailed regulations that affect thousands of our people are treated in such a cavalier fashion shows the style and pattern of this Government.

I hope that the Government will do their best to make the regulations better known to the public than they have been known to this House or the other place. It cost the Government £7 million in advertising to try to encourage people to claim family credit. I cannot think how much it will cost to enable people to understand most of these regulations.

I must refer first to the community charge. I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend to mislead the House but he said that people would be able to claim help up to amaximum of 80 per cent. in paying the fixed community charge. That is not the case. An average charge will be fixed and the 80 per cent. help will be based on that average charge throughout the country. Therefore, if someone lives in a high-charging borough they certainly will not receive 80 per cent. of their bill.

That point was made by the Social Advisory Committee because it was also most concerned. It estimated that the compensation, which represented 20 per cent. of the average community charge, means that claimants in Britain must pay much more. It thought that that was not a good idea. It stated that the amount represented an average amount and that the shortfall could be as much as 72p per week for some people in London. Can the noble Lord tell the House or write to me giving the average community charge? It is misleading to talk about percentages of an unknown charge. However, the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee was turned down. The reason the Government gave was that everybody should feel some responsibility towards the finances of the local authority. However, that is a contradiction because people are being made to feel responsible for the average community charge throughout the country. Therefore, in some places it will be more and in some less.

The Government also told the committee that it would help people to accept their local liabilities. I know that that is their main argument but it does not carry me very far. A person may have recently moved into a high spending borough or he may be a young person who has never had a vote and will have to wait three years until he has a vote. There may be many people who did not vote for the local authority in charge. I do not believe that any local authority gets away with a 100 per cent. vote. Therefore, it seems to me to be basically unfair.

It is too late to get this matter right but I believe that Ministers should stop talking about these percentages as if they were percentages based on the actual bill which a person receives from his local council, because in many cases it will be quite different.

I should also like to ask the Minister why the regulations seem to be very unkind to people who have been in hospital for a long time. After patients have been in hospital for more than six weeks their benefits decrease, sometimes by as much as £8 or £9 per week. However, I understand that those patients have a continuing liability for the community charge. That seems to me to be very unfair and unkind.

I also think that the regulations are not generous as regards backdating. I mentioned the need for publicity. It will take a long time for these changes to sink in. It may be that some people will not fill in their application forms, which I am sure will be very difficult and horrible, until several weeks after the entitlement began. I hope that that can be looked at again.

Before I leave the community charge, I look forward to hearing from the Minister, if not today then very soon, as to how many people will be worse off and how many better off as a result of all this, taking on board the problem of those people in hospital. I am not talking about people who are permanently in institutions but it is possible to be in hospital for more than six weeks.

On the unemployment and other regulations, I shall not repeat all the debates which we have had because we went into a lot of detail and I am sure that the noble Lord has read those debates. However, it seems to me to be extraordinary that a government can bring in a set of harsh regulations and then tell civil servants to be sensitive. That is a very difficult position in which to put civil servants. They are not supposed to bend rules or make allowances. The noble Lord used the words "sensitive and fair". What might seem sensitive and fair to a civil servant might not seem so to a claimant. Also, there are many different degrees of sensitivity and fairness. If the Government really wanted to be sensitive and fair to the unemployed they would not have brought in such harsh regulations.

I understand that there are reasons from which the Government will not depart regarding people who are wilfully unemployed. On this side, we have never supported wilful unemployment but we have taken the view that the previous legislation gave ample scope for dealing with those avoiding work for no good reason. There are to be appeals, but how long will it take for them to be heard? What will the people concerned live on in the meantime? If they win, will they be paid retrospectively? If they lose, what chances will they be given of a restoration of benefit if they take another job? It all seems to us to add up to making life more difficult for the unemployed, especially in areas of high unemployment.

These regulations are bound to create anxiety and insecurity. In many cases that will drive people to take low paid unsuitable jobs and encourage employers to keep wages low, especially for the unskilled. The regulations, like the Act, do not come to terms with the real difficulties of the unemployed. Instead of hope the Government offer threats. We shall monitor these regulations with care and concern.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I have very little to add to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, but I want to stress our great dissatisfaction with having these regulations brought before us so late. The point of regulations is that they deal with broad principles in a great deal of detail; and a great deal of detail needs a great deal of time to be properly absorbed and the implications fully understood. It is unreasonable to expect us to have studied, absorbed and thought about these regulations and then discuss them in this House at such short notice.

Obviously, it is not the fault of the noble Lord who is dealing with these regulations today but I hope he will make it plain to his lords and masters in the department that this is no way 10 expect us to deal properly with what is an important matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, these regulations in terms of what they mean to ordinary human beings throughout the country are a great deal more important than many of the matters discussed in this House. Although we cannot amend them, alas, I greatly wish that we had time to do a proper job. We certainly do not have time on this occasion.

I make only two points. The noble Lord said that the staffs would deal with great sensitivity, and so on, with claimants. Dealing with great sensitivity with people in difficulties—sometimes people who are awkward to handle and sometimes frightened and ignorant—is not an easy job. It is well known that a great many people in the department who have to deal with difficult casework have not been recruited, trained or paid to do the kind of skilful work suggested by the Minister. I know that I am spitting in the wind in saying that I hope the department will look at the way it trains the people in the department who do face-to-face casework with people who go to the department. Unless they do that, all the talk about sensitivity is, to put it mildly, self-deception because it will not happen.

From what the noble Lord said I certainly do not expect a satisfactory answer to my second point. The noble Lord mentioned the various ways in which the Government have considered the points raised in the discussions on the Bill about the time allowed for people to be excused, if involved in voluntary work and so on, from being available for employment, and how this would affect benefit. Several noble Lords asked how long people were to be allowed to find accommodation for children before being disallowed benefit because they were not available for work. The time in the Bill was left at 24 hours. A great many of us thought that that was totally unreasonable in order to make provision for child care.

We had hoped that, in considering the regulations, the Government would give thought to the hope that we expressed that longer than this completely unreasonable 24 hours would be given to people who had to find child care. I have not seen the regulations because of the time limitation. I did not hear the Minister say anything about it. I hope that I am wrong and that consideration has been given to the matter. If it has not, I beg him once again to think about it.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I hope that she will continue to be kind to me but I believe that that might be wishful thinking. I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that I have already been kind to him once this morning.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. I quite understand that she has already been kind to me once today. She has not been particularly unkind to me since then. No doubt that will happen later in the year when she will find her opportunities.

I shall try to answer some of the points put by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Jeger and Lady Seear. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was worried about publicity. As far as both the unemployment benefit and income support charges are concerned, we feel that these have already attracted widespread press coverage. The employment service has already begun a programme of informing and training its staff, particularly its councillors, about the new provisions. The staff will fully explain the implications to the claimants as they affect each of them individually. The noble Baroness raised the question of 80 per cent.—

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I shall take advantage of the Minister's offer to be disagreeable. It seems a little odd that the information has gone out before the regulations have been put through Parliament. I thought that they had to be approved by Parliament. If they have not been approved, how can they properly give publicity on the regulations?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has misunderstood me. Obviously the ideas behind the regulations have been discussed a great deal. I accept that they have not been approved by Parliament. They were discussed in another place yesterday afternoon. I hope that this House will approve them later today.

I return to the question of 80 per cent. I said that the maximum rebate would be 80 per cent. of the amount that the person has to pay. What I said was correct. I believe that the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I referred to rebates being available for up to 80 per cent. of the community charge liability. I believe that she is referring to the help that will be provided towards the remaining 20 per cent. through adjustments to income support. That adjustment is not part of these regulations so I did not refer to it.

The maximum rebate for the 80 per cent. is not an average 80 per cent. but 80 per cent. of what is actually there. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that. She also referred to the backdating provisions. These have been carried over from the housing benefit regulations. A person's claim for a community charge rebate may be backdated for up to 52 weeks where he or she can show good cause for not having claimed earlier. I do not see that as ungenerous.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred also to hospital patients. She said that the regulations were unfair to them. People in hospital will continue to be eligible for rebates at exactly the same level as they would be if they were not in hospital. I believe that she must be referring to the change in the level of income support after a person has been in hospital for more than six weeks. Again, that is not part of these regulations. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government are looking sympathetically at the level of personal allowances for people in hospital.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I wish to get this matter right. A person in hospital loses one benefit after six weeks. The Minister has just said that the person will go on paying the same community charge as if he were at home. If he is worse off to the extent of £6 or £7 per week, that seems to be rather hard luck.

Lord Henley

My Lords, the community charge is payable by the individual, not based on the residence. I presume that what they are losing—but I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about this—reflects their saving in living expenses through not being at home. If I have that wrong, I shall certainly correct it.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, what about their additional expenses of being in hospital?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I think the noble Lord would accept that the savings from being in hospital are greater than the additional expenses of being in hospital. I would certainly think that that is the case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the question of child care and the 24-hour rule. I would remind noble Lords that lone parents receive benefit without the need to be available for work. The 24-hour rule allows people providing services, for example looking after children, to have 24 hours' grace before having to take up work. Additionally, where persons have already secured a job it will not be necessary for them to seek work actively for the last week of their claim. This will allow even more time to make suitable arrangements.

The noble Baroness also raised the question of the Civil Service dealing with claimants in a fair manner. We feel that employment staff are faced daily with individuals from all walks of life, with different needs, capabilities and expectations. They are constantly called upon to use their judgment to ensure that the needs of individuals are accommodated yet at the same time the conditions for benefit as laid down by Parliament are complied with. There is no question of them having to bend the rules to achieve that.

This presents a challenge, and our new provisions will on occasions increase demands for them, but I am confident that with the additional training which is to be provided, employment service staff will fully rise to that challenge in their usual way.

I am sure that I have not answered every point put to me by the two noble Baronesses but I hope that I have dealt with most of them. On any that I have failed to deal with I shall certainly write to them when I have read what they said.

I feel that debates in the House when the Bill was going through have contributed greatly to the regulations. I am grateful for all the contributions made by noble Lords during the passage of the Social Security Act through this House, and I am pleased that we have accommodated many of the points that were raised. I see the noble Baroness looks somewhat doubtful.

I commend these regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.