Lords Sitting of 20 April 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

European Union: Political Implications
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that, were the United Kingdom to implement all the provisions on economic and monetary union in the Maastricht Treaty, this would lead to political union with Europe.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government do not believe that the implementation by the United Kingdom of the provisions on economic and monetary union would lead inevitably to political union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which I find somewhat difficult to reconcile with Article 105 of the Maastricht Treaty and Article 12 of the Protocol on the European Central Bank which, between them, give up our control of interest rates, cede our ability to print our own currency and give away our sovereignty over the holding and management of our foreign reserves to unaccountable foreign bankers in Frankfurt. Therefore, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that we will never lose the freedom to tax and to spend? Surely, my noble friend must agree that all these powers are such well-established and longstanding hallmarks of our sovereignty that to lose them would be to lose our political independence.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government guard very jealously their fiscal powers. They do not intend to take any steps which would in any way erode our sovereignty in these matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not my noble friend find it very difficult to deal with this immensely complex and important matter by way of an Answer to an oral Question?
Noble Lords,Noble Lords, Hear! Hear!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in his analysis. It is an extremely complicated matter.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the currency is primarily a means of trading the country's wealth and belongs to the inhabitants of this country and not to the Government? Does he further agree that it will have to be pooled in order to create a single currency and that the sterling bank note is a promissory note issued against that wealth? Can my noble friend tell the House what the mechanism will be for seeing that the wealth of the British people is not used to finance the debts of other
572
countries which have joined a single currency or indeed for preventing the country incurring the debts of the citizens of those other countries?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of extremely hypothetical matters. The Government have not the slightest intention of allowing any of the things he has described to happen.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have another five minutes to go before the next Question. Does the noble Lord agree that this is a profoundly complex and important question? Despite the noises from behind the noble Lord, it is right and proper that this House should explore all the implications and possibilities of economic and monetary union. Does he agree with his right honourable friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic and monetary union has profound political implications for this country? Since he actually read the treaty and the present Chancellor did not, is he not more likely to be correct than the present Chancellor?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, almost surprisingly, I find myself in a great deal of agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, says. As already mentioned, this is an extremely important matter. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that it has very significant political implications. That is why on many occasions in this House and in the other place, and doubtless on many occasions in the future, this matter will be debated in considerable depth and at length.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, given the present turbulence in the world currency markets, would it not be an immense advantage to a trading nation like Britain to have the stability of a single European Union currency if the conditions are right?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is clearly to the benefit of a country such as ours that there should be stable currencies, as it is for all countries. The disagreements that there may be among us no doubt relate to the methods of achieving that.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that monetary union, as envisaged by the Maastricht Treaty, must inevitably lead to an element of fiscal union? Is that not one reason why the Government are so wise to keep their options open?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. It seems to be both the most intelligent and sensible approach to see what this is all about and to take a decision at the appropriate moment on what we want to do.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I appreciate the desire of the Government to defer making a decision on political union until they have read the papers, which one hopes they will do in due course. Will the

573
Government bear in mind the existing situation where we are operating, possibly unknown to them, under bureaucratic union?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in reply to that question, I should like to make it clear that the Government's position on political union is absolutely clear. We do not want it and we are not going to participate in it.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one thing at least is clear; that those who put forward the idea of monetary union in the first place did so entirely for political purposes? Secondly, does he agree that one thing is unclear? I refer to how the Official Opposition can be against the idea of an independent central bank in principle if it is British but in favour of an independent central bank if it is European?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments with which I concur. On his second point, I find it difficult to see how those views tie together, but the duty to explain that is not mine. It is that of the Opposition.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I intervene with the greatest reluctance between two such distinguished spokesmen. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will allow the Official Opposition to speak first.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether it is the Government's view that, should Britain join a monetary union, the Government's control of monetary policy would be increased or diminished?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that would depend on the circumstances at the time. It is one of the matters we shall be taking into account when we consider whether or not to join at whatever moment that decision has to be taken.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as the noble Lord completely rejected the whole concept of political union a very short time ago—admittedly, it is not a wholly precise concept—will he explain how the Government reconcile that with their commitment to an ever-closer union to which they subscribed in treaty after treaty—from Rome to the single market—long before Maastricht?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the concept of "political union", as that phrase is commonly used in this country, is understood by the Government to mean the creation of a single European state. That is not what is referred to in the preambles to the treaties.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if the Government were to consider in future that it might be necessary to adopt some of the aspects of
574
economic and monetary union this House would be provided with opportunities to comment thereon before such action was made official?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that with absolute certainty.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

British-German Deregulation Group: Report
3.16 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on the recent report of the British-German deregulation group set up by the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl to consider the need for measures for deregulation of business within the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government welcome the report, in particular the recommendations for a specific leader on deregulation within the Commission; a deregulation checklist; and a permanent business voice in European policy-making. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl will be discussing the report at the forthcoming Anglo-German summit.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that report gives examples of the kind of mindless and unnecessary meddling by the Commission which puts up prices and destroys jobs and which does no good to the reputation of the European Union? Is my noble friend aware that the Government will have widespread support for any action that they can take to follow up that report? Does he also agree that the report makes clear how wise the Government were to secure at Maastricht an opt-out from the social chapter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as regards his last point, my noble friend is absolutely right. Opting out of the social chapter has resulted in us being far more economical in terms of labour costs than would have been the case if we had been a member of it. As regards the first part of his question, my noble friend is correct that we should not become involved with any kind of regulation which is not of importance. Perhaps I may paraphrase something that was said by somebody: "If it is not absolutely necessary to make law, it is absolutely necessary not to". That is what we hope will guide the Commission as well as ourselves.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over many years many businesses ancillary to agriculture have suffered from regulations under the aegis of the CAP? Will the present effort to deregulate cover those businesses also?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, any form of deregulation that is undertaken whether by the United Kingdom or Europe will apply right across the board. In so far as

575
regulations relating to the common agricultural policy may prove to be unnecessary, it would be in the interests of all if those regulations were to be removed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, dealing with the noble Earl's point that we should not have regulations unless they are of real and substantial importance, is he aware of a proposal that was issued by the Commission on 14th March (COM (95)42 Final) which consists of a mass of gobbledegook advocating the establishment of a level playing field for direct investment worldwide, for which by its own explanatory memorandum the noble Earl's department, the DTI, indicated mild support? Will the noble Earl undertake personally to read that mass of meaningless material with a view to intervening appropriately in the Council of Ministers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not think that this Question would go by without some helpful intervention by the noble Lord. He has of course drawn attention to one specific document issued by the Commission. I am not familiar with that document, but if it is all that stupid, irrelevant, and full of gobbledegook, I cannot see much point in me reading it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may reply. It was in order to be of assistance to Ministers in emancipating themselves from some of the stuff that is issued by their own officials.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, some of the stuff that is issued by my own officials, as the noble Lord puts it, is very useful and is not of an insignificant nature. I do not see that it should conflict necessarily with anything that the European Union suggests.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us are very worried by the rumour about not being able to eat square strawberries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure under what regulation that comes, but it is a very odd one. If my noble friend has any evidence of such a regulation, I shall certainly look into it. My guess is that it is completely wrong.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we, too, on these Benches are in favour of removing unnecessary regulations from the statute book, especially when they are duplications, as turned out to be the case with nearly half the regulations recently removed by the Government? Is the Minister aware that among the main recommendations of the Anglo-German deregulation group are strong proposals to limit tobacco advertising? As those recommendations come from a group set up and supported by the Government are they the final argument which will persuade the Government to act now on tobacco advertising?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the group to which the noble Lord refers is an expert group of independent members from all European Union member states whose chairman is Dr. Molitor. It will make its report to the Council of Ministers in June, and I hope that it will encourage deregulation. I do not propose to answer the
576
specific point about tobacco advertising; that is something that we shall have to discover when the report is published.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the constant manufacture of myths about Europe which frighten everyone and reach the press? When it is discovered that there is no truth in them, such as the one about straight bananas, the denial does not reach the press. So I hope that my noble friend will treat the concern of my noble friend Lady Strange with the suitable reserve that it deserves?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that helpful question. The idea that there are straight bananas or square strawberries is absurd. I know of no such regulations. I agree that such interventions do not help our cause within Europe. I am just surprised that they did not come from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that here is a fine example of the UK, with Germany, leading in an area which will be so helpful to business? I wonder what my noble friend will be doing in relation to the deregulation checklist and the 12 point action plan to get the other EU countries on board.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the report which has been made has been sent to all Cabinet Ministers, all deregulation Ministers, British embassies in Europe, and other international posts and officials who are concerned with deregulation. It is also being distributed widely to business and other interested organisations in the UK, the European Union, and internationally, so that people are well aware of it. It is our intention and our desire to ensure that efforts will be made to see that the President of the Commission and other European Union heads of state give the findings of the report serious consideration. I hope that they will do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to delay matters, but one of the reasons why I did not join in the questioning originally was that I have never seen this report. The Minister has given us a long list of people who have been allowed to see it. Will he explain how the rest of us are supposed to take part in debates on these matters if no effort is ever made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister or Chancellor Kohl so that those of us who are interested might get to see these reports? It is all very well Cabinet Ministers seeing them, what about the rest of us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was asked what efforts the Government were making to ensure that these matters were taken note of, and I explained who is being sent copies of the report. If the noble Lord has not received a copy, I shall see that he gets one and that copies are put in the PPO for all noble Lords to see.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether we should get on. We have two more Questions.

Benefits: Interim Payments
3.25 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What legal means of support are available to people refused benefit under the habitual residence rules pending the hearing of their appeals.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, interim payments of benefit may be made where a person is awaiting the outcome of an appeal, where it appears that there is, or may be, entitlement to that benefit. Payments are not, however, automatic. Decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual claim.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate Richmond House on reading the letters page in the Independent. How many payments have been made under the provision the Minister has quoted?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information. Information about refused or granted interim payments is kept at local level. It would be both complicated and expensive to collect that information centrally.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, what is the position with regard to the wives and children of such men?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is not just men, I have to say, when I look through the list of people who have been refused benefit because they are not habitually resident in the UK. If a family comes here and none of its members is an habitual resident, then it will not receive the benefit that we are discussing.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the people concerned are found, on appeal, to be habitually resident? Is he aware that many of them have nowhere else to go? Does the department know anything about what happens to them while they are deprived of money pending their appeal? If not, why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot agree that many have won on appeal, because the total number to date amounts to about 38,000 people. If people come to this country from the European Economic Area or from another pan of the world and do not pass the habitual residence test, the simple answer to the noble Earl's question is that they return whence they came.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of these people are British nationals and have no home in any other country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, something like 3,000 British citizens have failed the test, and 23,500 have passed it. The list of British nationals I have seen shows clearly that they are people who have close contacts with other countries. British nationality does not necessarily mean that they are habitually
578
resident in this country. I do not see any reason—nor, I suspect, do any of my countrymen—why they should necessarily be able to come here and immediately claim benefit.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the Government's principal purposes is to protect British taxpayers' money and not to allow it to be used by people who come here from abroad, claim habitual residence and then gain all the benefits to which this country's taxpayers have subscribed? Can we get across the message that we are not a soft touch?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I very much hope that now we have come into line with, for example, other EEA states on such matters, people, certainly from the European Union, will not see us as a good place in which to indulge in a bit of benefit tourism. I hope that those British citizens whose habitual residences are abroad will, thanks to the publicity arising from the Government's new decision, realise that they must think twice before they leave their home countries to come here.

School Class Sizes
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of classes in maintained schools in England and Wales had over 30 pupils at the last available census point.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in primary schools, 23 per cent. of single teacher classes contained over 30 pupils; that is, 23.2 per cent. in England and 20.6 per cent. in Wales. Figures for secondary schools are not available for Wales but the proportion of classes in England with over 30 pupils was 5.3 per cent. In all cases, the proportion of classes with over 30 pupils has declined substantially since 1979.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter that Gillian Shephard sent a few weeks ago to the Prime Minister and to other members of the Cabinet in which she warned that if the Government's policies were to be put into effect there would be a loss of between 7,000 and 10,000 teaching places and that class sizes would shoot up? Is it not time that the Government listened to their own Secretary of State before overriding her and making the conditions for our schoolchildren even worse?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, not yet being a member of the Cabinet, I am afraid that I have not seen the letter. I am glad that it has reached the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I understand that such a letter may have been leaked to the press. We are now further on than when that letter was sent and we shall see how local authorities have coped with the settlement that they received this year.

579
As a result of recent announcements, my impression is that they are coping a great deal better than they said they would.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since 1979 expenditure on education has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms; that during the past four years the total number of teachers has stood at about 390,000; that local authority schools have considerable reserves; and that local authorities have the power to give added money to education departments? Should not all those issues be put ahead of the threats that have been made to damage schoolchildren?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we very much regret the use by some local authorities and others of threats which, in the event, it is clear they had no intention of carrying out but were merely to gain political advantage. We believe that the interests of the children should come first and that such incidents should not happen.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I make no comment on the noble Lord joining the Cabinet, in particular in the presence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Is it not a fact that during the past two or three years the number of pupils in oversized classes has risen? More importantly, in the Government's judgment, as a result of the likely pay settlement, will the size of classes rise this year or next year? Will the Minister give a guarantee that whatever else happens no such deterioration, which would be a continuation of a recent deterioration, will occur?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I confirm that during the past few years class sizes have risen in general, as have the number of classes with more than 30 pupils. Perhaps I may summarise what has happened. The number of pupils has been rising at a time when education spending has been keeping pace with costs and with the number of existing teachers but without allowing for an increased number of teachers. That appears to be exactly the right thing to do at a time of recession and at a time of financial stringency. It is clear from all the research available to us that there is no major disbenefit arising from slight increases in class size.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister absolutely certain that a time of recession is the time to intensify financial stringency? Would it not make sense in a time of recession somewhat to ease public expenditure, in particular in education, so that one gains certain benefits?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the effects of increased education expenditure are long term. One should not look to increasing education expenditure in a recession in order to get out of that recession. There must be better ways of spending to achieve that, if that is what one believes should happen.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this country is greatly in debt to dedicated teachers from John o'Groats to Land's End whose major concern is the well-being of the children? Is he further
580
aware that it would be most unfortunate if a war of attitudes were declared between members of that distinguished profession, which I once had the honour of belonging to, and those in public service? Will the Minister bear in mind that when teachers ask for 30 pupils per class as a maximum they do so in the interests of the children and not of themselves?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the noble Viscount's last point, yes, I cannot but agree. Clearly, if the Government were to put in funds so that no class should ever be more than 30 in number, that would severely, and for a long time, restrict the Government's ability to pay any increase to teachers. Surely, yes, it must be entirely noble of teachers to be looking in that direction. What is less than noble of them is the idea that they should go on strike to achieve that. I hope that what the noble Viscount said about teachers in the first part of his Question, with which I totally agree, will be borne out when they come to vote on the resolutions which, sadly, were passed at their conferences.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that these complaints are made for party political advantage? Can he tell the House why his party's councillors in Warwickshire and elsewhere are so strongly in agreement with them?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I said "in some cases". I believe that in this year, when there has been a hard settlement, there are some areas of real problems, and we have always said that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, important though class size is, the professional quality of good teaching is very much more important? Would he also agree that were many of our teachers to abandon their Left-wing teaching practices, presumably so favoured by the Benches opposite, and concentrate more on teaching children the phonic method of reading, for example, our children would have a very much better education, and that there should be fewer examples of the kind of outrageous behaviour perpetrated by the teaching unions in the past few days?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, it is clear that one of the reasons why some teachers find it difficult to teach large classes is that they are using teaching methods which are entirely inappropriate. They are still back in the trendy 1960s, trying to use totally child-centred approaches, which are inappropriate not only for a class size of 30 but for any size of class. We hope very much that the progress being made by Ofsted and others will result in great improvements in the quality of teaching. We believe that that is where the benefits to the pupils will come from and that reductions in class sizes, at great expense, would have only marginal benefits.

Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to
introduce a Bill to amend Section 2 of the Commonwealth Development

581
Corporation Act 1978 to confer further powers on the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will be aware, one of the functions of the Law Commission and of the Scottish Law Commission is to promote,
"the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law".
The Law Commissions have during the past 26 years presented to Parliament 15 reports on statute law revision with draft Bills attached. The 14 previous reports have resulted in the repeal of nearly 3,800 enactments, including almost 1,600 whole Acts. The present Bill proposes the repeal of 223 whole Acts or orders and the removal of redundant provisions from 259 others.
The repeals set out in Schedule 1 to the draft Bill are in six parts. They cover local legislation applying in both England and Scotland and they apply also to such areas as overseas jurisdiction, the citation of statutes and transport. As always, the work of the two Law Commissions has revealed a good number of points of historical interest in the antiquity of some aspects of the present law. For example, the oldest statute to be repealed is an Act of 1694 passed to restore and rebuild the town centre of Warwick after it had been destroyed by fire. The Act expired in 1704. It is an interesting coincidence that Warwickshire was referred to recently. The most recent of the local Acts to be repealed are a group of such Acts applying in certain areas of Scotland dating from 1977 to 1981. Those Acts were superseded in 1982. There has been full consultation with interested bodies on those and all the other repeals.
I draw your Lordships' attention to Part I, which rationalises the vast amount of local authority legislation in Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire. In its explanatory note, the Law Commission says that the,
"bulk, uncertain operation and inaccessibility of local legislation are problems of long standing."
A detailed review of such legislation for those counties has been carried out by Mr. John Phipps as consultant to the Law Commission and completed with the co-operation of the local authorities concerned. This is the second such project to have been brought to fruition. The first covered South Yorkshire and was enacted by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989. I hope that more will be completed.
This Bill and its predecessors play a valuable part in the work of modernising and improving the statute book. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in thanking the two Law Commissions for the very careful and detailed way in which they have set about
582
this important task. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on Tuesday, in reply to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was able to confirm that there is a gathering momentum in securing the passage of legislation in politically non-controversial areas of law reform deriving from the work of both Law Commissions. On that occasion he was good enough to recognise the support of the Opposition in that endeavour.
The Second Reading of this Bill affords the opportunity to remark upon the unsung but highly important labours of both Law Commissions: the improvement of the statute book by repealing what is obsolete and unnecessary and reducing to a minimum the number of separate enactments.
I desire to put on record the appreciation of my party for all aspects of the work carried out with real effectiveness by both Law Commissions. Obsolete, obscure and needlessly complex legislation diminishes the quality of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. My party is committed to the reduction of the statute book, simplification of legislation and the use of plain English by the draftsman. On another occasion your Lordships may wish to discuss how that can best be achieved.
Meanwhile, on these Benches, we are content that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. I have already acknowledged the Opposition's support. I should like to say how much I appreciate that support from the noble Lord and many of his colleagues. It is an enterprise in which all are engaged with fervour. The Law Commissions are greatly encouraged by the way in which their work has been received in this House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is the first of two linked consolidation Bills on the Order Paper in my name. Perhaps the House will allow me to speak to them both together and then to move the second Bill formally.
The Merchant Shipping Bill consolidates some 30 Acts or sections of Acts dating back to the consolidating Act of 1894. The Shipping and Trading Interests

583
(Protection) Bill is a discrete topic derived from parts of two of them. The 1894 Act contained over 740 sections and 21 schedules. Many of its provisions have been repealed over recent years, and the details of many other provisions of the old Merchant Shipping Acts are now covered by regulations. The new Merchant Shipping Bill is about half the length of its predecessor, and will give effect to a welcome rationalisation of the present law. Therefore, we are moving in the direction to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred.
I take this opportunity of thanking the draftsman for continuing this important consolidation work. If your Lordships are content to give these Bills a Second Reading, they will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I welcome the two Bills which arise from the report of the joint working party, published some years ago. In a way it is rather sad that time was not found last year for the measures. It would have been the 100th anniversary of the 1894 Act.
Perhaps I may make one observation in qualifying my welcome; it is rather a sad observation. In 1894, our merchant fleet was the largest in the world and it remained so until about 25 years ago. It is sad to note today that it has shrunk to its present rather low rating.
It was a delight to meet the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aboard the very fine latest addition to our fleet, the "Oriana". Therefore, I believe that it is extremely appropriate that the noble and learned Lord should be moving today the Second Reading of the two Bills.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for those observations. Of course, I am sorry that the Bill was not brought forward 100 years after the last consolidation measure but I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that those are difficulties that one must face from time to time. I agree that we should be happier if our merchant navy today were bigger than it is. It is great in quality but we should all be happier to see it greater in numbers.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Jobseekers Bill
3.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The jobseeker's allowance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of section 37(2)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 184 which is consequential upon it. Before I do so, I wish to express my sympathy and to offer my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, whose husband has so sadly died during the Recess. It was my privilege to meet him only once and he was a man to whom I took an instant liking. I offer the noble Baroness my sympathy with all my heart. I hope to see her back in due course and I wish her the very best that I can.
Also, I wish to express my regret that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, as I understand it through no fault of its own, has been unable to complete its study of the Bill in time for the Committee stage. As the Committee will know, that is normally the stage at which we take up the very valuable help which we receive from that committee. As it is, we shall not be able to have its full and detailed findings in a second report available to us until the Report stage. That means that we shall not be able finally to dispose in Committee of all the many issues arising from the delegated powers in the Bill. In that context, I must express my regret at the limited number of days available for the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I welcome the spirit and the letter of the report of the committee on the Sittings of the House. But we can only operate those recommendations when we have enough time to do so. I shall do my best; but I cannot promise success.
The effect of the above amendment is to postpone the commencement of the Bill until 1st April 1997. I believe that the Department of Social Security, left to itself, is one of the more competent departments in Whitehall. Nevertheless, over the past few years, it has experienced a series of what I believe we are not now supposed to describe as "cock-ups" and which, I may perhaps describe as "indiscreet elevations".
I shall not go into the severe hardship payments for 16 and 17 year-olds because we shall have time to discuss that issue later. However, there is the story of disability living allowance; there is the story of the Child Support Act; there is the story, about which we shall hear a great deal more, of incapacity benefit; and there is the story to which I shall return, after today's Question, of the habitual residence test. In those cases, I believe that it is more than a fiction to say that the Minister is responsible—this Chamber having what the

585
noble Lord, Lord Peston, once described as a sense in government circles that, "It will be all right on the night"; in other words, that it will be possible to press ahead and that, somehow, all the difficulties will mysteriously vanish when it comes to implementing the legislation. As a result—certainly to my knowledge from 1988 onwards—the Government have a record of attempting to implement their Bills a great deal too fast.
The latter is especially true in the case of what, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, admitted on Second Reading, is a framework Bill. That means that large parts of the Bill are, in effect, not yet ready to be put before us. I do not know how far they have been thought out or what wordings are available in draft for the numerous series of regulations that we can expect under the Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a response to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, requested at Second Reading. The noble Lord said that he hoped that it would be possible to allow Members of this Chamber to see those regulations in draft before they were officially presented. That would tend to save public contention. If the Minister does do so, it will of course take time; but, if he does not do so, it will take time in other ways.
Merely finding time in the business of the House to deal with the number of regulations that must be scrutinised before the Bill comes into effect will be very time consuming. In fact, the Government admit in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that they are not really sure yet how they will set about it. Part of the section headed Effect of the Bill on Public Service Manpower says:
"Since detailed decisions on the delivery of jobseeker's allowance have yet to be taken, it is not possible to quantify the overall effect at this stage".
In my view, a government who say that are not yet ready to bring their measure into effect. If we want to avoid another catastrophe when the legislation is put into effect, it would be well worth the Government's while to postpone what they do for a little while.
I believe that there is also a considerable problem about the effect of the Bill on public service manpower. I have given the Minister notice of a series of questions that I intend to ask about adjudication officers. As I understand it, it was the intention of the Bill to take work off adjudication officers by taking decisions at the front line in the hands of the employment officer. I do not think that it will work that way. When employment officers find people not to be eligible for benefit, I believe that there will be a flood of appeals going forward to adjudication officers.
Therefore, can the Minister tell me, first, how many adjudication officers are in post? Secondly, what is their average salary? Thirdly, who appoints them and what are their terms and conditions of service, especially their tenure? Fourthly, what at present is the average waiting time for appeals concerning unemployment benefit; and, fifthly, how many new adjudication officers are the Government planning to appoint to deal with the work arising from the Bill? That is a question upon which they ought to have thought before fixing a commencement date.
There is also the problem of merging two bureaucracies—employment and social security; in other words, the merging of two departmental cultures. If there is one thing that we all know about Whitehall it is that there is nothing harder than merging two departmental cultures. In fact, the cultures of employment and social security are extremely different. They remind me of Sir Alan Herbert's Epitaph on an Archbishop:
"My predecessors fighting sin, Did their best to bring men in, But I was best without a doubt, At keeping the unworthy out".
Getting those two attitudes to work together in employment offices will be a very stormy task and it will take time. There is also the problem of what I understand is now described in Parisian fashion as "co-location". As an academic, I know all about the difficulties of split-site mergers. Where we are getting the local merger of services, do we know yet to what extent they will be brought together in one lot of premises and to what extent they will be split between two different premises? Further, do we know how much progress will be made—and such progress will be vital to justify the principle of the Bill—towards one-stop shops where people can deal with the business of employment service, career service and benefit agency all in one? In rural areas in particular, where people on benefit probably have neither the money nor the opportunity to travel, that can be quite vital.
If the Minister can convince us that all those provisions are ready and in place to implement the Bill on 1st April 1996, well and good. But, if the Minister tells me that it will be, "All right on the night", I shall tell him that it was not so last time. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to express my support for the amendment. However, in doing so, I should like to say, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the amendment would have been supported from our Benches by my noble friend Lady Turner who, as the noble Earl explained, is sadly absent from the Chamber. I am sure that we are all grateful for the concerns that the noble Earl and other Members of the Chamber have expressed and we shall certainly relay them to my noble friend. It will mean, however, that many of us will be dealing with amendments which my noble friend would, I am sure, have dealt with even more persuasively and articulately than my friends and I could hope to do today.
The more I contemplate the noble Earl's amendment, the more it seems to me that it has all kinds of virtues. The noble Earl is calling for a year's delay in implementation. Obviously, this is not the time and place to make a Second Reading speech, but I should like to make two points. First, I should like to reinforce what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said about the regulation in the Bill. There are 116 regulations. I wish to quote from the interim report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which states at paragraph 9:

587
"It could nonetheless be argued that the Bill leaves so much power in the hands of Ministers and that these powers are so fundamental that the Bill is no more than a skeleton Bill of the kind against which the committee warned in its first report to the House".
The report then considers some of the individual regulations. It states, on Clause 4,
"The committee worries whether such a fundamental matter should be left undefined in this way even where there are precedents in social security legislation provisions to do so",
and so on.
We have here guidance from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, set up by this Chamber, to suggest that this is a framework Bill and we do not yet know how it will affect the many thousands of people we are considering today. We need to know more about what is intended and we need to have the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee to tell us how that should be regarded by us, but we do not have that here. That is one of my reasons. However, there is a second set of reasons I should like to spend a little more time on. This is a reason which might even commend itself to the Government: it is the savings that would result were this Bill to be delayed by a year.
The first reason—this is not my priority but I certainly suspect it would be the Minister's—would be the savings in cash. I understand the Government expect to save £140 million on this benefit in the first year and £270 million in a full year. We on this side of the Chamber do not accept those figures. We accept that there will be savings in this benefit because costs saved in this benefit will be exported to other benefits, in particular housing benefit and council tax benefit. Why is that? It is because the Government, despite the best efforts of those on the Opposition Benches at Second Reading to explain the disincentive effect of means testing on working families, still fail to understand the point that, if one moves onto means tested benefits after six months instead of 12 months and the working partner—it is usually the female—is in part-time work, she will come out of work rather than have her male partner's benefit deducted pound for pound for every pound she earns.
Therefore, the Government in this Bill have constructed a perverse system which ensures that, if one partner loses his job—let us say the husband—the second partner will also lose her job. Both then need to claim more benefit and for longer. This is not a figment of my imagination. I have had modelling done by reputable bodies which shows that if the male partner is on unemployment benefit and the female partner is in part-time work, they might on certain assumptions receive benefit of £100 a week. But if they both come out of work and they are both on benefit because of the effect of means testing we shall have to pay them £70 more in benefits; that is £170 to £180 a week rather than £100 that they will currently be receiving.
I predict—I believe this is well substantiated—that although the benefit we are discussing may be cut, total social security expenditure will rise because the costs will be displaced elsewhere. Only when the total job market is expanded as a result of investment and
588
training will there be real saving on social security budgets. Delay these benefit changes by a year, and save us all some money.
Secondly, an even more significant argument is that such a measure would save stress and distress for claimants. It would save the stress and distress that would visit those under 25 who, although they have paid their national insurance benefit, will now find government reneging on that contract and cutting their benefit by 20 per cent. It would save the stress and distress on those who do not quite shape up to the new harsh actively seeking work tests embodied in this Bill because, quite unreasonably, English is not their first language; or because, quite unreasonably, they have a learning difficulty; or because, quite unreasonably, they are partially disabled and do not qualify for incapacity benefit, on the one hand, and may fail to qualify for JSA, on the other; or, quite unreasonably, because although they had skimped in the past to build some modest savings, they now find those savings lost before they can enjoy any benefit. Would we not wish to avoid such social stress?
Thirdly, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are anxious to save the plummeting reputation of the Government in the field of social security. We are being altruistic. The Government were warned but ignored the fact that they would face major problems as regards the poll tax; and guess what the Government subsequently had to do about that? The Government were warned but ignored all of the amendments and issues raised by the Opposition as regards the Child Support Agency; and guess what the Government will now have to do about that? The Government have been warned but have ignored the major problems that are now apparently being thrown up by the new incapacity benefit; and the Government will quite rightly face a stormy year ahead on those issues. May we suggest to the Government that they might want to save themselves some stress and distress too because this Bill is rightly detested? It is seen as nasty, bullying, vindictive and mean. It is seen as all of that precisely because it is that.
There is one final saving. Depending on the fate and fortune of the Prime Minister, we will by April 1997 either have had or be within weeks of a general election. Why implement a Bill when the whole policy behind unemployment will change, so that instead we will be rebuilding our economy rather than merely punishing the unemployed who are losers as a result of the Government's economic policies? The £270 million that the Government expect to save in the first full year of this benefit would be financed by getting just 30,000 people back to work. That is what we will be doing, but we will be doing it more aptly without being encumbered by such a Bill as this. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is a very experienced and, if he will allow me to say so, very effective parliamentarian and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be ready to answer fully the points which he made, I thought with considerable fairness and certainly considerable authority. I rise only to support one thing

589
he said, and that is when he indicated that he thought it was unwise of the Government to try to restrict the Committee stage debates on this Bill to three days.
This Bill is a Bill of very great importance to a great many of our fellow countrymen. It is also, as even a perfunctory study of it makes only too clear, an extremely complicated measure in which it is always possible that government and even the best of Ministers may make mistakes, and it would be an advantage if this Chamber, with the great volume of expertise which it includes in its membership, were to be able to discuss it fully. Therefore, it seems to me that a three-day limit is a very great mistake and that it will involve rushing the Bill, or rushing at any rate this stage of the Bill, and also perhaps taking a good deal of it at an inconvenient hour of the night. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when perhaps he has contemplated what happens in today's debate, will reconsider the question of limiting the Committee stage to three days.
I appreciate fully, because I served as a Minister for a good many years, the compulsions—and the desirability obviously from a Government's point of view—to get their legislation in good time. But there is an answer to all that and that answer is to do what in any event we will do next week; and that is to sit on some Fridays. It would be perfectly possible to include at any rate another day of the Committee stage on a Friday since, as I understand it, only next Friday is at the moment hypothecated to a particular debate.
I know that the Government, with their very tender and proper concern for the convenience of Ministers, are not always keen to sit on Fridays. However, given the volume of business which your Lordships' House is being asked to consider, I believe that the answer is to take an additional Friday rather than curtail this Committee stage to three days. Four days, or perhaps even five days, might well be devoted profitably to this Bill.
I suggest to my noble friend that that is not only in the national interest but in the interests of the Government. I know from experience that this is the kind of Bill in which it is possible to make mistakes. It would be an advantage to the Government to have a full debate, with the possibility of revealing errors, difficulties of drafting and so on, which can only be brought out if there is full debate.
For that reason, and also because I happen to be a great believer in the review functions of your Lordships' House, I ask the Government to consider, when today's debate is over (I do not ask the Minister to reply to this point this afternoon), at least a further day and possibly two further days in Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may begin by expressing my total agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his sympathetic remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I hope that we see her back shortly.
590
I heard the words "I am going to resist making a Second Reading speech". I shall also use them but, unlike the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, I shall resist making another Second Reading speech. I shall address myself to the amendments in front of us. We shall come to the other matters in the course of today and the two days to come.
That allows me to address the point of whether we have three days, four days or even five days, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter invited me to contemplate. We have just had five days on the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill, which was a very much larger Bill than this and covered a wider field. Indeed, we debated that Bill first, before the other place. This Bill comes to us having been through the other place. It has been through its Committee and Report stages there. Taking into account the time allocated to the Pensions Bill and other Bills, I believe that three days is about right for this Bill. I hope that we can study all the various parts of the Bill during those three days.
Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for the noble Earl's main amendment, Amendment No. 184, which invites me and the Committee to postpone the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance until April 1997. Clause 37(2) of the Bill provides that the substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a date set by the Secretary of State. This gives the Secretary of State discretion to set the actual date of introduction as he judges appropriate. Subsection (3) of that clause allows for different dates to be set for the introduction of different aspects of the provisions.
Members of the Committee are aware that our intention has always been to introduce JSA in April 1996. That remains the case. The noble Earl clearly recognises that the introduction of JSA is a large and complex task. We also recognise that. He would prefer us, in recognition of that fact, to take an additional year to complete the task, with a greater degree of certainty of getting the implementation right first time. The noble Baroness, mindful of the Government's welfare, concurred with that argument. Tempting as it may be to succumb to those blandishments, I must invite the Committee not to accept the amendment in the noble Earl's name.
I give the Committee and the noble Earl this assurance. We are closely monitoring progress towards implementation. As was announced in another place, we have commissioned an external review of the work being carried out to implement JSA. That review will help us to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are put in place to introduce JSA in April 1996.
If we conclude, for whatever reason and at whatever date, that the arrangements being made for the introduction of JSA in April 1996 are such that there is an unacceptable risk that things might go wrong, then we shall certainly consider alternatives. One of the alternatives would be to delay the date of introduction. One of the objectives of the jobseeker's allowance is to improve the service we offer to jobseekers. We certainly do not intend to put that at risk.
I am not sure whether I shall be in order if I try to answer some of the questions the noble Earl asked me about two aspects of the implementation of the Bill and

591
the jobseeker's allowance. On the question of premises, I can tell the noble Earl that the payment of JSA will, as far as possible, be made from Employment Service Jobcentres. We think that that is the right place to do it. In practice, how the staff are spread across the Employment Service and Benefits Agency offices will be managed pragmatically by each district, with a view to obtaining the best value for money for the state and providing the best service for the people who visit us. Planning guidance is currently with the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. Field organisations in various parts of the country are considering all these matters and related issues as to how we provide the "front of house" service for the claimant who comes looking for a job.
The noble Earl kindly gave me advance notice that he was going to ask these questions on adjudication officers. I shall answer his questions as quickly as possible and I hope that the Committee will bear with me. I was asked the questions and I ought to try to answer them.
There are approximately 650 specialist adjudication officers currently employed by the Employment Service to give decisions on doubtful claims for unemployment benefit and to process appeals against decisions. That figure excludes adjudication officers working in regional offices on advisory monitoring duties and officers with adjudication powers who award benefit in straightforward cases.
The Benefits Agency calculates the number of adjudication officers differently, as adjudication officers are mainly drawn from staff in LO1 and LO2 grades. They have many other duties in addition to adjudication. Therefore, it is not so easy to provide an accurate figure on how staff are deployed. However, we estimate that there are currently approximately 11,000 such staff, although I must emphasise that that is an estimate.
The noble Earl asked about the pay rates of the staff. The Benefits Agency has no set grade for adjudication officers. Generally, adjudication is undertaken by officers of two grades and those grades have average salaries of £15,848 for an LO1 and £11,852 for an LO2. In the Employment Service the post of specialist AO is graded as falling within the Employment Service management pay band 6. The salary range is £12,300 to £15,900. I am afraid that I do not have enough information on which to calculate the average rate of pay for adjudication officers.
The legal status of adjudication officers derives from a centralised instrument of appointment. The instrument makes a block appointment of those staff who are employed wholly or partly on social security adjudication. Individual adjudication officers do not receive a personalised letter of appointment. Officers in the Employment Service are appointed by an Assistant Secretary on behalf of the Secretary of State for Social Security with the concurrence of the Chief Executive of the Employment Service on behalf of the Secretary of State for Employment. They are civil servants. They are recruited and promoted with regard to their capability to act as adjudication officers. Conditions of service in both services are the same as those for all permanent civil servants who work in either agency.
592
I was asked about average waiting time on appeals. Information is not available on individual reasons for appeals and could only be obtained at considerable cost. For appeals against all decisions on unemployment benefit in the quarter ending June 1994, which is the latest period for which we have figures, the average time from the lodging of the appeal to the date of hearing was 22.4 weeks. Employment Service adjudication officers process appeals and submit them to the Independent Tribunal Service in an average of 21 days from the date of receipt. Of course, many appeals are dealt with more quickly.
Lastly, I was asked whether we plan to appoint any more adjudication officers. Under JSA there will be more adjudication officers making labour market decisions, as front-line staff in the Employment Service will become involved in specific areas for the first time. There will be a reduction in the adjudication work that is currently carried out at ES sector adjudication offices as responsibility for payment adjudication will transfer to the BA. The organisations will consider the number of staff employed on adjudication during the course of working out how they are to deliver the service.
I have answered as briefly as I can the questions sent to me by the noble Earl. I come back to the substantive point that I wish to make in relation to the amendments before us. If for any reason we conclude that the arrangements for introduction pose an unacceptable risk we will certainly take the steps available to us to delay the date of introduction. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Earl will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Earl decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps we may make clear our view on Committee days. Obviously, the three Committee days were arranged through the usual channels, and therefore it is inappropriate for me to demur. However, given the comment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that it will not be able to report on the Bill until after Committee stage, I wonder whether there is a case for asking the Minister to consider with his colleagues, through the usual channels, that there should be a day and a half rather than one day at Report stage. That will allow us to take the Report stage rather more thoroughly than may otherwise be the case, in particular to take on board at that stage the issues raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that we have not been able to do this time around. After all, if we are to have three Committee days it is not unusual to ask for a day and a half rather than one day for Report. That may meet the well-founded criticisms of both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Rochester: Perhaps I may ask the Minister what provision is to be made for the training of the additional adjudication officers to whom he referred.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to say a word in support of the speeches from the two Opposition Benches, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I make a plea for extra time for consideration of the Bill. I do not believe that this Bill can be compared with the Pensions Bill. This Bill is

593
only a skeleton, whereas the Pensions Bill was fat and already fleshed out to a large extent. In addition to the suggestions already made, I ask that somehow time should be provided in Committee, on re-commitment if necessary, to consider the second report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. After all, that committee has said quite clearly that, wherever it can, it issues its report so that it can be discussed in Committee with all the freedom of debate which that stage of the Bill allows.
We will not have the substantive report of that committee until after the end of Committee stage. If we are to have that freedom of discussion I believe that before Report stage, or some time thereabouts, we should be allowed to discuss the substantive report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in Committee on re-commitment. I should like the noble Lord to consider that suggestion sympathetically.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to press the Minister on one other point that arises from the report of the scrutiny committee. In that committee the memorandum from the two departments pointed out that most of the resolutions likely to be considered regarding regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure until the date that the JSA itself came into effect. Thereafter, they would be subject to the annulment procedure.
As noble Lords will know, in terms of effect the annulment procedure is much more difficult. One is asking the Government to reconsider regulations. Because this is in many ways a framework Bill, not a detailed one, a great deal of its effect will depend on the nature of the regulations. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance that the substantive regulations will, as far as possible, be brought forward before the date on which the JSA is brought in and that, if that cannot be done, he will reconsider his advice to the Committee not to press the amendment at the present time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that that is the very point. Put another way, the important first time around is by affirmative order. Obviously, the system cannot be up and running without all of the regulations having been passed. Therefore, the first time they appear the affirmative order will apply. There is precedent for that procedure. The first time the regulations come before the House and into public view is by far the most important time.
I am not too sure how many happy hours the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, spent on the Pensions Bill. That was an extraordinarily important, long and complex Bill. It covered a very wide field. This Bill covers a very much narrower field. The length of time that one spends on a Bill is dependent entirely upon how much time one spends on some of the preliminaries. We have already spent quite a bit of time today on the preliminaries. I do not wish to take up any more time. Let us get on with the detail. I will certainly draw to the attention of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal the points that have been made about the time
594
allocated to Report. But my view on that is the same. When viewed against the days devoted to the Pensions Bill, I believe that the present allocation is generous.
As far as training adjudication officers and other staff is concerned, I say to the noble Lord that the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service have a pretty well developed system. There are very considerable training facilities in the agencies, as indeed in the Civil Service, for anyone who is appointed an adjudication officer, or in any other capacity, or promoted to a new job.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I agree with almost every word he said. The more that we can approach this matter in a non-party spirit the more we will advance. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The distinction that he makes between this Bill and the Pensions Bill is a perfectly sound one. It is of the essence of a framework Bill that a lot of it is not there and one has to tease it out. I do not believe that the Minister was here when we dealt with the Education (Student Loans) Bill. That was in effect a three-page Bill. I believe it had one line on a fourth page. However, it produced two very long days in Committee. The less you put into a Bill the more time it takes in Committee.
I was disappointed that the Minister was not in a position to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, at Second Reading about consultation over an advanced draft text of the regulations. That might reduce the time it takes to bring the Bill into effect. In general, the Minister did not seem particularly ready to accept olive branches. I know that the Minister has discretion, but I have yet to be convinced that there is any likelihood of his using it. I also know that the Minister and the department will monitor carefully. I heard that said in relation to the Child Support Act, 16 and 17 year-olds and the disability living allowance. However, it is very rare indeed for anything to change because the department has monitored something. I was interested in the choice of the words "on premises". It was said that it would be managed pragmatically. That is a wonderful example of Whitehall-speak for "I do not know". I think that at this stage of the Bill they ought to know.
I am grateful to the Minister for the information he gave about adjudication officers. It confirms my sense that adjudication officers will be under more pressure than they are able to cope with. A period of 22.4 weeks when, in the meantime, one may be totally without benefit is an inhumanly long time. I think we should expect that to increase; it may even double or treble with the flood of appeals that will arise under the Bill. That confirms my sense that the department is not ready for the storm that is coming its way and that it needs more time to think about it. I seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kennet, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L.

Methuen, L.

Chapple, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rix, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Freyberg, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stallard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cockfield, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Coleridge, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Aldington, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Courtown, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cox, B.

Astor, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bethell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blaker, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boardman, L.

Davidson, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

De Freyne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Burnham, L.

Downshire, M.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gage, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Gainford, L.

Chesham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Gisborough, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Goschen, V.

596

Hailsham of Saint

Norrie, L.

Marylebone, L.

Northesk, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Henley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hogg, B.

Pender, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone L.

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Prior, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Killearn, L.

Quinton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rawlings, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Rennell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Renton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Romney, E.

St Davids V.

Liverpool, E.

Savile, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Sharples, B.

Lyell, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Slim, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Marlesford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moyne, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Wise, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("for") insert ("and is seeking").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which is directly related to Amendment No.4, I shall at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 51, 59 and 65. Like many other amendments on the Marshalled List, these derive from the work of my noble friend Lady Turner. I echo all the remarks that have been made about the work that she has done. We are very sorry that she is not with us this afternoon.
The central aim of the amendments—it was an idea very close to my noble friend's heart—in effect is to take out of the Bill the word "actively" in the phrase "actively seeking work", and indeed take it out of employment practice. As she said, you cannot inactively seek work. If you seek work, you are seeking work actively. In principle, we do not need the word "actively".
Much more importantly, in the Employment Service, in practice since its entry the actively seeking work test has become synonymous with the transformation of the service.
It is the most notorious change in the administration of the employment benefit service over the past 15 or 16 years—not merely the phrase, but the way it has been

597
interpreted. Therefore the object of these amendments is to insert into line 12 of the Bill on page 1 the words "and is seeking". The Bill would therefore read as follows:
"is available and is seeking employment;".
To reassure those who think this might mean that as a result of this amendment everybody would get employment benefit without any tests, I must remind your Lordships of what would remain in Clause 1 of this Bill. The object of Clause 1 is to reserve the Government's position so that anyone who is seeking the jobseeker's allowance can be denied that allowance on 10 related grounds. That is what this clause says. It is a bit like the National Lottery. You have to get through 10 of the right holes; you must have 10 of the right numbers to get any money. You have to be sufficiently available for work to satisfy the officers of the employment service, and you have to agree to sign the jobseeker's agreement. They have to agree to let you sign it, because if they disagree with the conditions that are in it they may not let you sign the agreement, in which case you are stopped. You have to be available for work and active for work. You have to have paid enough contributions or you will not get any money. You must not have too much capital or any income or else you will not get any money. You must not be engaged in remunerative work. You must not be incapable of any work. I admit, to be fair to the Government, that is very difficult to operate. It is very difficult to be incapable of any work these days: almost anybody who stands up or leans to is capable of work. But there it is: it is in the Bill. You cannot be receiving any education; you cannot have a pension; and you must not have left the country. You have actually to be here.
If you get through all these holes with all these qualifications, you can get a jobseeker's allowance. The point I want to make is that we are not seeking to knock down all these barriers. There are still seven barriers to getting money. You have still to get through seven of the gateways. We are just trying to affect the "actively seeking work" test. That is all this amendment means. It affects at the most two or three of the barriers.
What is the case against deleting, or redefining—because some of our subsequent amendments seek to define "actively" if we cannot get the Government to take it out—the "actively seeking work" test? It is partly an argument from history and partly an argument from contemporary practice. In October 1989 the Government decided to modify the availability for work test. It changed the adjudication officer's guide, which said that in future applicants for unemployment benefit were required to take active steps.
All the evidence is that from that moment the number of disallowances significantly rose. In 1992—and, in my opinion, more significantly still—the rules were changed. The employment officers no longer wrote warning letters if they felt that an applicant was getting close to being in breach of the "actively seeking work" test. Now there are no warning letters: we have a later amendment about this. An applicant will simply get taken off employment benefit.
This is perhaps the most important thing of all: in 1994 the employment staff who administer this test, who you would have thought were supposed to be the most objective of people involved, were placed on performance-related pay. Many of you will know already how strongly the Government resent any indication that they might be placed on performance-related pay themselves, but it is perfectly appropriate for every body el se. It is perfectly appropriate for members of the employment staff, who now have a vested interest because they get bonus points for getting people disallowed in respect of benefit. If performance-related pay goes far and fast enough, Her Majesty's judges will get performance-related pay for convictions and for sentences. We have not got that far yet.
However, this was a quasi-judicial function, I would submit; and I would also submit that the effective operation of the service depended upon applicants believing that they were getting some kind of judicial assessment by an independent person who, if he was not on their side, at least was not against them. Nevertheless, we now know that within the year there were three times as many disqualifications as there were before, and the number of references to adjudication officers rose. That is the history of what has happened through the manipulation of the activity test in the administration of the employment service.
Those of you who have been interested in this Bill will know that we have been inundated with evidence and testimony from all kinds of interested parties, and in particular from the citizen's advice bureaux giving concrete examples of people who have come to them saying—and this is under the present system—they must attend three times a week; they must get a list of jobs; they must produce a diary which shows that they have been to see a series of employers, who have signed in the diary to say that these people have turned up. You will know of the complaints from employers who say that they have received all kinds of useless applications. You will know the demotivating consequences that have come to the notice of officers in the citizens' advice bureaux of people going after ludicrous jobs for which they have no qualifications. You will know of the rising tide of despair and of poverty for people who suddenly find that the Giro has not come this week and that they have been declared not eligible for unemployment benefit.
We do not say that by passing this amendment this will be cured. There are lots of other amendments referring to other parts of this Bill that would do that; but we say that this use of the "actively seeking work" test is the most simple, straightforward and significant sign of what is wrong with the employment service. We ask your Lordships to take it from the Bill. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am not in the habit of quoting my own speeches, but in case the Minister should be tempted to say that I have changed my mind, I thought I might

599
quote what I said on the 1st December 1992 when we were debating the latest "actively seeking work" regulations. What I said was this:
"We on these Benches support the requirement that people should actively seek work. We do not regard it as acceptable that people should simply take benefit and do nothing. But that is not the only factor we regard as right. We also believe it is right that people should not die of starvation and that the use of starvation as an instrument of policy is unacceptable."—[Official Report, 1/12/92; col. 1311.]
You may remember in the Bill of Rights that the dispensing power was abolished as it has been exercised of late. We think that people should seek work, but we oppose the "actively seeking work" requirement as it has been exercised of late. We agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said about the withdrawal of the warning letter. We agree very strongly indeed about the withdrawal of hardship pay. That is in fact our biggest single grievance.
We also agree that it is not right that people should be sent chasing round to all sorts of jobs for which they are obviously unsuitable. In fact on 1st December 1992, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said she believed that this was leading some employers not to use the Jobcentres. That is extremely unfortunate for all of us. We on these Benches also agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:
"We understand that it is not possible to draw up regulations in such a way as to identify precisely those people who clearly have no intention of actively seeking work and who seek to maintain an alternative lifestyle supported by state benefits."
Ever since 1986 that has been a legislative Holy Grail which the Government have been pursuing. I do not believe that they will ever find it by a legislative route. Legislation cannot foresee all cases; it cannot be defined precisely enough.
The "actively seeking work" regulations, as used at present, are creating a great deal of hardship to no practical effect, especially of late—I use those words literally—as they have been exercised since April 1994. In the period from April to December 1994, 14,472 people were disentitled to benefit compared with 4,247 in the equivalent period the year before. Does the Minister have any information of what happened to those people afterwards? That is not an idle question. One cannot judge the effectiveness of a policy without knowing what its effect actually is That is something on which the Government must undertake research and that research should be debated by us all.
I want also to support Amendment No. 41. It takes a much more sensible approach to the problems of drafting which arise in this case. It proposes to insert,
"in order to qualify for payment of a jobseeker's allowance under sections 2 and 3 of this Act, a claimant must be available for and seeking work".
It leaves out the rather frenetic quality of "actively" which is not always easy when there is no work to seek. But it lays down in general terms the principle that people should be available for work and that they should seek it. It leaves the interpretation of that to be settled by the courts in relation to the individual claimant on the circumstances of the individual case.
600
I happened to be in the Chamber on 7th March last when the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was answering a Question on the use of mobile phones while driving. He was being pressed to make that a specific offence. The noble Viscount, in my opinion very wisely, was resisting the use of the specific offence on the ground that the law could not foresee all contingencies. For example, the late Mr. Robert Maxwell was once convicted of driving without due care and attention for using a battery razor while driving. The law cannot foresee all the various instruments that a person may use when driving. It must stick to the general principle and apply it in relation to the circumstances of the case. I was reminded of an academic colleague's explanation of why there were so many capital statutes during the 18th century. He said that the MP who demands the death penalty for stealing his turnips, never stops to think that the catastrophe which happened this year to his turnips may happen next year to his potatoes.
The problem with the Bill, and with a lot of the drafting which has been coming out of the Department of Social Security in recent years, is the attempt to specify everything in too great detail; the attempt to foresee all the contingencies. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, taught me, when replying to amendments that I moved, that the more detail one specifies in the Bill, the more often one needs to try and change it. That is why the Department of Social Security has moved into this rather frenetic pursuit of flexibility. It is an exercise in perpetual contortionism. It would have done much better to have studied the report of the Renton Committee on the drafting of legislation which I was studying at two o'clock in the morning and which I found to be extremely interesting. That committee—I quote it with trepidation in the presence of no less than two of its members—said in paragraph 10.11:
"too much weight should not be given to possible uncertainty about the application of general principles to particular factual situations: even where legislation is framed so as to deal with specific instances, as it generally is in this country at present, some situations are almost sure to be overlooked, thus leaving an area of uncertainty",
and that has to go to the courts. The committee went on to say,
"The adoption of the 'general principle' I approach in the drafting of our statutes would lead to greater simplicity and clarity. We would, therefore, like to see it adopted wherever possible. We accept, however, that this approach to a large extent sacrifices immediate—though not eventual—certainty and places upon the courts a heavier responsibility in identifying the intention of the legislature when applying legislation to particular circumstances".
It would be interesting to study the drafting policies of the Department of Social Security in the light of its relations with the courts over the past 20 years. I was looking last night at a work by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, English Law: The New Dimension, published in 1974. The noble and learned Lord thought then that the courts were hesitant in venturing in detail into the area of social security. He even quoted Professor Richard Titmuss as saying that in social security the law had practically nothing to offer, which is a view that practically nobody would advance now. Since then we have had a much more activist approach by courts to social security. I refer to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 1990 in the

601
social fund case. And if I may be forgiven for mentioning a sub judice case only so far as to say that it is interesting, I can refer to the case of Bate v. Chief Adjudication Officer in the Court of Appeal on 30th November last. That represents a case where the department thought that the courts had not expressed their true intention. The Renton Committee had something interesting to say about that approach also. Quoting the comments of the judge it said,
"These comments are the result of endeavours on the part of the legislature to ensure against the possibility that the legislation will be construed by someone, in some remote circumstances, so as to have a different effect from that envisaged by those preparing the Bill in question. As one Parliamentary draftsman has put it: 'The object is to secure that in the ultimate resort the judge is driven to adopt the meaning which the draftsman wants him to adopt, If in so doing he can use plain language, so much the better. But this is often easier said than done'".
The committee slightly understated its case; I do not think it can be done at all. It is because the Department of Social Security has been so determined to try to bind the judge to adopt the meaning of the draftsman that we have this frenetic pursuit of detail which has led to this enormous growth in the use of regulations and therefore to problems about how this House may give its consent. Some conversation between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be extremely helpful in avoiding future problems. Meanwhile, I make these points because this amendment is drafted in the way social security legislation should be drafted, and I am pleased to support it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand this group of amendments, the essential point is the desire to take out of the Bill the provision that someone who is to obtain this allowance must be "actively" seeking employment and leaving it, presumably, on the basis that all they have to establish is that they were seeking employment.
I suggest that that would be an unfortunate amendment to the Bill. Whether or not one is really seeking employment—not actively seeking, but just seeking—may be a matter of opinion. If one sent a letter saying, "By the way, if you want to employ me I am available", is that seeking employment? The essence of the Bill as it stands is that one must be actively seeking employment. To carry an amendment to that effect will be extremely damaging both to the operation of the Bill and to the understanding of it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: When the Minister replies to this debate, will he answer one or two fairly straightforward questions for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who may not know the answers? My noble friend Lord McCarthy referred to performance related pay for the staff who are to implement these proposals. Can the Minister tell us what is the measurement of performance? Is it the number of applicants or the money saved? Are targets set for them? How substantial are the rewards if the targets are achieved? Conversely, are there penalties for failure to reach the targets? I believe that in this and in subsequent debates on this Bill
602
it is very important that we should know the answers to these questions because the attitude of the staff in implementing all these proposals will be very important indeed. We need to know how they are driven.
Lord Renton: I agree with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the true effect of these amendments, especially Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. They are of very limited scope and, as my noble friend quite rightly said, they simply raise the question of whether it is enough that there should be the seeking of employment, which is a pretty vague expression, or whether mere should be the need for the active seeking of employment.
Having said that, perhaps I may now refer to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the recommendations in the report of the committee on the preparation of legislation, of which I had the honour to be chairman. I was glad that he made those quotations. I broadly agree with him that we should avoid detail if it is intended merely to cover a number of anticipated hypothetical circumstances. If we try to include too much detail we will generally fail: we are pretty certain to leave something out. I agree with the noble Earl that whether we have a need for detail or not, it is as well that the intention of Parliament should be made clear by the statement of principles.
I do not have a copy of our report with me, but my recollection is—in due course I can show the report to the noble Earl—that when we have legislation that financially affects the individual citizen's rights, as in a finance Bill, and as we have here in the entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance, we have to spell out exactly what the entitlement is. That is what Clause 1 and others in the Bill attempt to do.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, as I always am when he refers to that report. However, I do not believe that governments—dare I say it: civil servants who instruct parliamentary draftsmen—have really taken advantage of the opportunities which that report presents through its recommendations. In the particular group of amendments to which reference has been made, I do not believe that the Government can be accused of doing something that the report felt should not be done. Although I of course welcome any broad statement of principle to implement what is in the Bill, I go along with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that as regards the particular points raised by these amendments the Government can well stand firm.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may very briefly respond to some very generous remarks. I am not arguing with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about the Bill. However, this Bill is giving a power to produce many further detailed definitions of "actively seeking work" in regulations. It was that attempt at a more detailed definition which I was describing as "frenetic".
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may say a little in support of these amendments. Quite rightly, they correct the Bill, which is based on a fallacy. That fallacy is that we have unemployment because the unemployed are not actively seeking work. That is not the case. We have unemployment because there are no jobs for the

603
unemployed to have. It is very peculiar that it is not enough to be seeking work but that one should be actively seeking work.
How does one define "actively"? If I sit here and listen to noble Lords, am I being very active? If I had to go to an office and prove that I am being active while I am sitting listening, people may not agree. I may be very actively seeking work sitting here and making many applications for work, but that may not satisfy someone sitting in a jobseeker's allowance office.
We shall get into more and more detailed regulations. The point is that, no matter how actively one asks a person to seek work, he or she is not going to find it if there is no work to be had. Therefore, rather than worry about the idea that somehow it is a lack of effort on the part of the unemployed which is the cause of this problem, one should be tackling the cause of unemployment in some other way.
This clause is not about the fact that people will get more jobs if they actively seek work, but, as many Members of the Committee have said, it is really about saving money. We are cutting people off for not seeming enthusiastic enough in finding work. That requirement will be screwed up tighter and tighter because there will be foolish attempts to save money and at the same time there will be clamorous demands for cutting taxes or something like that. It will not save very much money, as my noble friend pointed out, because the money saved on this particular benefit will have to be paid out elsewhere. This provision will not create any more jobs than there are already but an even bigger bureaucracy than we already have in this field, and that is bad enough.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very happy to be speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as he may well remember that a few years ago in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was speaking for the Government on social security matters, he said of him and me that we were the only two Peers in the House apparently who were against the term "actively seeking work". He paused in case anyone wished to join us in our lonely position. He then went on to further business. Therefore, it is altogether appropriate that I follow the noble Lord.
The citizens advice bureaux, which are highly respected in this House, are very unhappy about the phrase "actively seeking work" and the way in which since, I believe, 1989 it has been turned again and again. That was a metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It has been, and continues to be, the turn of the screw. It is a tightening up all the time through regulations of one sort or another which are particularly intrusive into people's private lives. Therefore, for that reason alone, the measure should be resisted.
I am very unhappy with the evidence which the citizens' advice bureaux have accrued on this subject which proves indisputably that we should not persist in the turn of this screw. If only the Government would agree to respect human beings who are unemployed and who will, indeed, seek work conscientiously. The Government should not presume that they will not do so if that screw is not turned.
604
In my brief Second Reading speech, I said that I was increasingly worried about the policing of society. One of the things that I find most disgusting is the way in which the unemployed are increasingly being policed more and more repressively.
The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux states that the actively seeking work formula has been used in,
"an increasingly authoritarian regime at the jobcentre which has little to do with helping unemployed people find work".
I agree with that. However, in the form that it will take if the Bill is enacted, the actively seeking work formula means that the burden of proof on the claimant is heavily augmented. It has to be realised that the test whereby a claimant has to prove that he has been seeking work actively applies more than once. It has to be proved every week, so I am told. What a burden that is on a person who may have to seek work for miles around and who will have very little money with which to pay fares to and from the places where he is seeking work. What an intolerable burden it places on employers also. Surely the Government Benches might be sympathetic to the point of view that I am now putting forward because employers already find it extremely onerous to have to stamp chits to say that an unemployed person has been seeking work there when those employers know perfectly well that they do not have any places available. Apparently, they have to go through that rigmarole every week for every unemployed person who actively seeks work from them. For those reasons, I support the amendment and hope that it will be put to a Division.
Finally, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which is very experienced, is certain that the Jobseekers Bill, with this provision included, will further increase the surveillance —or what I call the "policing"—of all unemployed people and will inevitably lead to a further rise in the number of people who fall foul of the actively seeking work test. Do we really want that to happen? I suggest that we do not.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am pleased to follow the weighty words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the issue of how we treat unemployed people and what assumptions we make about them. Almost everything turns on the way in which the concept of actively seeking work is to be interpreted and on the independence and fairness of that judgment. That leads me to ask the Minister three questions.
The first concerns the reference made in the memorandum to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred which states that the definition of "actively seeking work" will be that work must be actively sought in every single week. No reference is made to the possibility of illness or to other responsibilities that fall upon individuals even when they are unemployed. It is also stated that "actively seeking work" must mean availability,
"for a minimum of 40 hours a week".
Nothing is said about a possible maximum. Therefore, everything will turn on whether an individual is judged fairly on the question of whether he or she is actively

605
seeking work. The first question then is: what other conditions are to be attached to the definition of that crucial phrase? A great deal will turn on how the phrase is interpreted.
The second question is: who will adjudicate in an appeal? In an earlier reply to my noble friend Lord Russell, the Minister said that there would be additional adjudication officers. However, when one reads the memorandum from the two departments, it is clear that greater reliance is to be placed on what are called "front-line employment officers" when making those decisions. It is also stated that training in adjudication will not be required for those front-line employment officers, although some will make crucial decisions. I am sure that noble Lords will take on board the point that I am trying to make as best I can—that the adjudication officer's independence is crucial and that we need an absolute assurance that his or her pay and the judgment made about his or her work will be independent of the decisions made.
My third point about the actively seeking work test also relates to the later amendments concerning the jobseeker's agreement. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I refer to the question of whether or how the claimants will survive during what is today an average period of 20 weeks before an appeal is heard. One of the things of which we are most proud in this country is that people are held to be innocent until proven guilty, but in this Bill we shall be condemning people to 20 weeks without benefit until such time as the final adjudication is made. My noble friend Lord Russell asked the germane question: on what are they supposed to live during that time?
I conclude my brief intervention on this amendment by saying that as a Member of your Lordships' House who spends half her life working in the United States, I have seen the devastating consequences that occur when people who are unemployed because they cannot find jobs (because their education, training and circumstances do not fit them for those jobs that are available) are refused all forms of assistance and help by society. Some of those people turn extremely sour. We are concerned in this country about maintaining law and order. Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider long and hard whether, if we make benefits impossible to obtain for genuinely unemployed people who want to be employed, we are not driving those people in a direction which all of us will come to regret.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should start by saying that people who claim the jobseeker's allowance will be doing so because they want to get back to work. We should hold that in our minds not only for the rest of this debate, but for the rest of this Committee stage.
The effects of the amendments would be to undermine the importance of a jobseeker's effort to find work. That point was underlined by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. Indeed, these are negative amendments which would not be in keeping with the principles that we are trying to establish in the
606
jobseeker's allowance, which is an attempt to help more people back into jobs. It is a current condition of entitlement to benefit for unemployed people that the claimant should seek employment actively. That is an important principle and we intend to carry it forward into JSA. It is essential that jobseekers should maintain regular contact with the labour market, and the actively seeking employment test helps to secure that link.
In Clause 6 we seek to define what the term "actively seeking employment" means. Clause 6(1) provides a definition of that term, while subsection (3) (a) details our intentions for the regulations to be drawn up under Clause 6. Those regulations will outline the steps that will be regarded as "actively seeking employment" steps. At present the list focuses on steps which amount to an actual job search. We shall be extending that list to include steps which improve a jobseeker's employability, such as drawing up a CV or obtaining references.
Some of the points that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, relate to Clause 6 and will be dealt with in some detail when we come to the amendments to that clause. So perhaps I can invite her to contain herself until we reach some of those details, when we will go over them.
The general point—I am not sure that I want to get into an academic discussion about the form of legislation—raised as usual with great interest by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was about how we frame legislation—whether we try to cover all eventualities or put out a few broad principles and leave it at that. The simple fact is—we will see it as the Bill progresses—that opposition parties will always try to argue from the particular to the general. They will always pick a case and say, "There is a case. You should be making sure, oh Government, that your secondary legislation or your primary legislation takes it into account". To think that we can just have nice broad principles, and hope they will be enacted in the way that we think, is not the way the world now works. Perhaps it would be less complicated if that were the way the world worked, but having been at the receiving end of piles of examples: why is this person not receiving benefit? Why is that happening? Why is the next thing happening? In other words, trying to argue from the particular to the general, and I do not see any great prospect of us managing to devise legislation, unless we change many other things and the way our country looks at such things, including, I suspect, going to court—
Lord McCarthy: I do not follow the Minister. Is he saying that because, when we give him particular examples of the whole thing breaking down, he cannot find any general answers, he is not going to give us any answers? Why cannot he tell us why the system broke down in that case?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is making my point. He is reinforcing the fact that those are the kinds of questions that he wants to ask me, and he wants me to reply in detail. That is what governments

607
try to do via secondary legislation which is detailed and tries to ensure that the lines we draw catch the various parts of the human condition.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is therefore confirming our worst fears. What he is offering us is ideology unaffected by information, fact or experience.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am obviously not explaining my position correctly. I am trying to counter the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we should have legislation that embodies the broad principle and leave the detail to be dealt with by someone else. I am merely saying that I am usually attacked because the detail does not do all the things that the Committee would like it to do. Noble Lords want more detail, or they want the detail to shift an inch this way or that way. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, looking at me, so perhaps I should remember that now it is a centimetre this way or a centimetre that way.
While it may be an interesting common room discussion, the reality is that modern legislation has to try to be complicated.
Earl Russell: If I might, I should like to concede that I recognise that the Minister is making a serious point. If he would like me to meet him halfway, and outside the Chamber, I should be happy to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl has indicated neither the time nor the weapons. Perhaps I may return to the amendments. As I have said clearly, we believe that the principles currently in legislation of actively seeking work should be carried into the new legislation. The amendments would remove the word "actively" from the phrase "actively seeking employment" as it occurs at various places in the Bill.
It is clear that we wish people claiming JSA to be active in their job search. Present legislation uses the phrase, "actively seeking employment". If we dropped the word "actively" in moving to JSA, jobseekers, the Employment Service, the public, and, perhaps, ultimately the courts, could all be forgiven for supposing that we meant to signal by that some dilution of the condition; some lessening of the need for the jobseeker to go out to look for work, to try to take steps that would find him work. In practice, the amendments would mean a watering down of the principle that jobseekers should make every effort to get back to work.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who suggested that the real problem was that there were no jobs. Each year about 6 million jobs become vacant in this country. On any day, there are about 300,000 vacancies. About one-quarter of people who become unemployed leave unemployment within a month; about half leave within three months; about two-thirds leave within six months. Since the end of 1992, unemployment in this country has fallen by over 600,000. While of course I appreciate that, especially in certain areas, there are difficulties, there are still a lot of jobs available month after month, and it is right that in return for the JSA the jobseeker should be encouraged actively to seek work. That is what we wish to see in the Bill, and that is what I am invited to remove from
608
the Bill thus making it rather more passive, so that the signal given by this place to the outside world might be "it doesn't really much matter whether you look for work or not". We cannot do that.
I know that many Members of the Committee opposite do not occupy the real world, but in the real world that I occupy, and the real world that most people to whom I have talked occupy I am afraid that there are people who have no intention of working very hard to find a job. Indeed, I can think of a few families who have made it their life's work to act like that, and it is very, very annoying for their friends and neighbours who go out to work and who work jolly hard. We should not live in a totally rose-tinted world where some pressure is not needed on some people to ensure that they actively look for work.
The figures I gave in response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, indicated that many people find work month after month. Many people are on the register for only a month or two and back to work they go.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am sorry to press the Minister on the issue of the real world, but just as the real world contains some people who are not seriously seeking jobs—of course we know that what he says is true of a minority—he recognises that in the real world there are officials and, for that matter politicians, who can allow their personal biases to get the better of them. I shall not pursue the issue of adjudications with regard to appeals and the way adjudication officers are rewarded if the Minister will be kind enough to tell me that he will allow me to raise those issues again when we reach Clause 6, because they seem also to be of the essence of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In fact what I invited the noble Baroness to be patient about was the first series of items she mentioned which pertained in particular to Clause 6. I shall turn to some of the specific points raised by her and others in the course of the discussion about other matters which do not arise later in the Bill.
I was asked about the independence of adjudication officers. They are independent. They take their advice about their performance from the statutory, independent Chief Adjudication Officer. There is no link between the performance targets of the Employment Service and the adjudication officers' decisions.
Public sector pay—the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I have jousted about that on a number of occasions at the Dispatch Box—is related to the person's contribution to the organisation's performance. The Employment Service's annual performance objectives are translated into local office standards. Those are reflected in the individual's work-related objectives. In the case of an employment officer, they will include, for example, placings into work and the accuracy and speed of benefit payments. There is not, and will not be, any correlation between conditions of benefit for a jobseeker and an employment officer's pay.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may press the Minister on that point. Are we wrong therefore in believing that in April 1994 the target for disqualifying

609
people from benefit was doubled to 150,000 per year? Does not a target exist for disqualifying people from benefit, which has been doubled in 12 months?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have said what I have said. I shall check that, and we shall no doubt be able to return to the point later. I shall answer the noble Baroness when I have the detail of the accusations she has just made.
On the training of employment advisers, staff act as adjudication officers, and those who act as adjudication officers will be trained. Employment officers, as I think I said in the previous debate, have their own training programmes. I have been to some. They are thorough and impressive. It is currently planned that about 15 days' training will be given to fully experienced staff. I hope that assures Members of the Committee that we are at one in wanting to ensure that the staff who run the new system are properly trained and have the kind of training, skills and knowledge that will enable them to do the job properly and fairly. There is nothing between us in the need to do the job fairly.
The Employment Service, in its annual performance agreement for 1995–96 with the Secretary of State, has a target of 185,000 submissions to adjudication, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred,
"where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work".
I emphasise that there must be an arguable case with supporting information. The target is not, as has been mischievously suggested, a target for disallowance. It is designed to ensure that the cases of people who do not appear to be entitled to benefit are referred in good order to adjudication. I believe that to be a sensible way to proceed. There are targets in respect of many other aspects of the system—
5.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister would not deny that the figures show that the number of disputed cases which go to adjudicating officers is rising significantly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has doubled.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must check before using the phrase "rising significantly". I shall return to that matter, given the figures as they stand. They may well have risen; but frankly, I do not suppose that anyone would complain if officials were ensuring that the system was running properly and fairly. It must be run fairly for the individual—and that is important—but it must be run fairly for the taxpayers who, at the end of the day, foot the Bill for the whole benefit system—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I push this important point once more.
The Minister appears to have failed to understand that the Employment Service has been given a target which was doubled between 1993–94 and 1994–95. That has been significantly increased again to a figure of 185,000. It is a target for referring cases to adjudication in the
610
expectation that such claimants will be denied benefit. In other words, the employment officials are being encouraged, pressed and targeted to dispute claims and therefore to deny people benefit. That target has been doubled as an act of policy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, they are being asked to put to adjudication any case where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, or actively seeking or willing to accept, work. I am amazed that the Opposition believe that trying to do that is wrong and iniquitous.
Perhaps I may return to the numbers in order to ensure that the noble Baroness does not repeat them. The year 1994–95 was the first that an adjudication submissions target was set and it was set at 135,000. It has been set at 185,000 for 1995–96. That is not doubling; it may be an increase but it is not doubling. I hope that answers the question which the noble Baroness asked—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: What is the point in having a target? Surely the courts and the adjudication system exists to decide what is right and wrong in various cases. If one starts setting targets and choosing numbers, one immediately puts forward a presumption of what will be found, which is against abstract justice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I regret to disagree with the noble Lord. Targets in the various agencies of government, in the social security service, have an important part to play. We are discussing one particular target but there are others relating to the speed with which cases are dealt. I am sure that the noble Lord will not dispute the fact that it is good to try to have targets that officials meet as regards the time they take to deal with cases. I am glad that he indicates, "Certainly not". It is important that we lay down targets to ensure that the system works fairly and effectively—
Earl Russell: I understand the Minister's point that this is a referral to adjudication and not a disentitlement. Does he agree that it is a little like giving the police a performance target for the number of people prosecuted for speeding? Does he understand that to many of us this appears to resemble a corrupt practice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We must disagree about that. I do not believe that it is a corrupt practice because that assumes that the officials who carry out the work are carrying out some kind of corrupt practice. That is most unfair to them. They do a good job and they appreciate the importance of all the targets that are being used in order to improve the service provided by the Employment Service or by the benefit agency in general terms.
We have drifted away from the point about "actively seeking". Amendment No. 65 would remove the word "actively" from Clause 6(4)(b), which provides the power to require jobseekers to provide evidence of their attempts to seek employment. That is an important provision.
As I have explained, it is a condition of entitlement to JSA that jobseekers should seek employment actively. It is an important principle and we intend to continue

611
with it. We believe that Clause 6(4) (b), providing as it does the power for regulation to require jobseekers to attend at a certain place and time and to provide information about their availability for work and the efforts that they have made to find work, makes clear to every jobseeker what he or she is expected to do. That will enable us to monitor whether jobseekers are continuing to meet the "availability" and "actively seeking employment" conditions, in addition to offering guidance and help to them in their efforts to find work.
I do not believe that the amendment should be accepted. It may not change much of the power that we have under Clause 6 but it certainly would water down the message that jobseekers should make every effort to return to work. That would not be constructive or worthwhile and it would not meet the approval of the country at large or all those people who are genuinely seeking work. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn; but if the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that we divide rules the day, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who spoke in support of the Government, made a much better case than that made by the Minister. They merely asked us to believe that if our amendment were passed, everything would fall away and that people could lie on their backs, receive unemployment benefit and that there would be nothing to stop them. To those noble Lords, the word "active", which most of those in the Employment Service have never heard of, never seen, never introduced and never needed, was the critical word—take away "active" and all is lost. That is nonsense, but it has a certain surface and plausibility.
At the beginning of the Minister's comments he toyed with that defence. He told us, first, that most of the unemployed, or a great number of them—he did not agree at the end—wished to return to work. At the end of his speech he told us about those who did not. The Minister then said that the Government will undermine "it". I believe that he meant their wish. He said, "We will undermine their wish by taking away this particular test".
It is a strange idea that all those people should be lying around saying, "Now I won't have anything to do. I don't want to go back to work; I previously did, but I have lost my desire to work because I happen to know that they have taken a word out of the Bill". The Minister was much closer to the truth when towards the end of his speech he began to explain clearly—more clearly than we did—precisely how the Government see the Employment Service operating. It is there to test people. It is there to find people wanting. It is there in the figures, to which we shall return later, that year by year, under the crucial use of that phrase, more and more people find that their benefit is disallowed. That is the object of the exercise. That word is a crucial part of that exercise and that is why I shall divide the Committee.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Methuen, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Diamond, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Northfield, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Freyberg, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

White, B.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hooson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Aldington, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ampthill, L.

Downshire, M.

Astor, V.

Ferrers, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gage, V.

Birdwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blaker, L.

Gisborough, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gowrie, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cadman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hogg, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hothfield, L.

Chesham. L.

Howe, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Coleridge, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Courtown, E.

Layton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Leigh, L.

Lindsay, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cross, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cumberlege, B.

Lucas, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

613

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rawlings, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Romney, E.

Marlesford, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Milverton, L.

Savile, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Seccombe, B.

Moyne, L.

Sharples, B.

Munster, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strange, B.

Nelson, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Norrie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Northesk, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Prior, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, leave out line 13.
The noble Lord said: This amendment directs itself to the major new innovation in this part of the Bill; namely, the jobseeking agreement. Under the Bill as it stands, in order to qualify for benefit, an unemployed person, among all the other things which he must do which I mentioned in relation to the last amendment, must enter into a jobseeking agreement which remains in force at the time of the benefit. We are proposing to leave out line 13 on page 1 of the Bill which will mean that there will be no requirement that a person must sign a jobseeking agreement as a condition for receiving benefit.
We are not saying that there should not be a jobseeking agreement. After all, the Government are very fond of telling us—and they are right—that the idea of a jobseeking agreement came from the long-standing practice of a back-to-work plan. Often they speak as though the jobseeking agreement is no different from the back-to-work plan. If the Government want to call the back-to-work plan a jobseeking agreement, that is all well and good. We are not saying that that should not exist. We are not saying that all the other conditions which must be satisfied in order for a worker to claim benefit of any kind should not still be in the Bill.
Again, I make no apology for the fact that the idea comes out of the work and the research carried out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau. In its publication, which I hope the Minister has to hand, entitled In Search of Work, it has made it its business to catalogue the consequences of the present situation as regards the way in which the back-to-work plans have been developed; for example, the waste of time, the inappropriate jobs and the annoyed employers—indeed, all the factors that I sought to place before the Committee during discussion on the previous amendment.
The Citizens' Advice Bureau says that, if we take the back-to-work plan and call it a jobseeking agreement, empower employment officers to give formal directions for the carrying out of such a plan and, unless that agreement is fully met, make it automatic—because that is what it means—that benefit will be denied, thus forcing the individual worker into the adjudication process, then we will further exacerbate the problems of dealing with long-term unemployment which we discussed previously.
I do not know whether many Members of the Committee remember the stories about the Ministry of Labour as it was before the war. In a study of the Ministry of Labour at the time, Freedland and Davies show that immediately before the war the ministry was carrying out practices which are very similar to those now before us; in other words, it had its version of a back-to-work agreement. A distinguished member of the Ministry of Labour took unpaid leave for six months and went around the country doing what sociologists would now call "participant observation", presenting himself as a member of the unemployed. He wrote out the results afterwards showing what was happening in the employment offices of the ministry, and a Conservative Government changed the way in which that department worked. Would that such simple research could have a similar effect today! I say that because there is research which reveals the same situation. Therefore, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: When the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, spoke on Second Reading, she said that the jobseeker's agreement was not an agreement. That is the hub of the whole argument. A claimant has to enter into a jobseeker' s agreement on pain of losing benefit. If that was an abduction case, that would count as evidence of duress. The penalties of not entering into an agreement are so severe that it seems to me that the claimant will, in effect, have to enter into whatever agreement the employment officer demands.
I am not happy about anyone being so completely under the power of another. I am certainly not happy about having conditions which are that fundamental to a person's survival being made that far down the line. I know that the Minister will say that the situation is subject to review by the adjudication officer, and I shall not go into details because we have done so before. However, what worries me is the imposition of unreasonable conditions.
I shall give the Committee one example which has actually happened. If someone is homeless, it is part of proving that he is actively seeking work to prove that he is looking for accommodation. That is fair enough; indeed, I do not believe that anyone would argue with it. But what appears to those concerned to be proof that someone is seeking accommodation may vary.
There was one case which happened in London this past winter. It involved someone who was homeless and who was ruled not to be looking for accommodation because he had a dog which he would not give up. Because that person would not abandon his dog he was deprived of all right to benefit. I find that absolutely outrageous. It is an exercise of arbitrary power, without

615
any warrant, which one might successfully appeal against under the present law. But whether one could successfully do so under the new law is something that we simply cannot tell until we know what criteria the adjudication officer is to use. Moreover, as such criteria will be in the regulations, which are not before us, we cannot make a judgment.
Here we have someone "drest in a little brief authority" who can sign away someone else's future. Alternatively, because many employment officers are not the type who like to be "drest in a little brief authority", we may have someone who was previously capable of enjoying an excellent relationship with claimants but whose relationship with them is completely ruined by the power that he now has to use. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, told me that his great-grandfather's actual words were: "Power tends to corrupt". It does not always do so, but the risk that it may is very great. The amount of power which is being given to the employment officer is such that I would not give to anyone on earth. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: It seems to me that the jobseeker's agreement is an essential part of the Bill. I would very much regret to see it removed. I take the point just made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the parties to the agreement may not be entirely equal. However, the fact is that there is an agreement. It is a positive matter which strikes me as being more effective than the present signing-on arrangement, which is often a rather negative procedure. At least in this concept there has to be an agreement between the Employment Service—and I assume its good will and intention to do everything it can to assist the unemployed person to find a job—and the person who is seeking employment. As I understand it, the agreement is a continuing one. It seems to me that it has the makings of a great improvement on the present rather negative signing-on arrangement. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is exactly the nub of the issue that we are now discussing. If the jobseeker's agreement is indeed a valid and voluntarily entered into agreement between an employment officer and a jobseeker, then, as the noble Lord suggested, it might be a very valuable and constructive way for people to go back into work. I believe that all of us on both sides of the Committee strongly approve of that aim.
However, the problem is whether that is the kind of agreement that it will be or whether it will be the kind of agreement referred to by my noble friend Lord Russell—namely, a coercive one with the word "agreement" having Orwellian overtones and not meaning what it stands for. Quite sincerely, that is the point about which a number of us are probing the Minister.
On 3rd April, when responding to questions on the issue, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to the fact that jobseekers have different paths and different qualities. That was certainly music to many ears because
616
it is right that jobseeker's agreements should match the individual capabilities, talents and experience of the jobseeker. However, those of us who have read the memorandum from the two departments carefully are more frightened now than we were before about what is constituted within that agreement. For example, it looks as if one of the questions that jobseekers may be asked to respond to is: "What is the lowest wage you will accept for a job?" If that is correct, it would remove the whole basis of a free market because there cannot be an open agreement reached when one side has already had to declare in advance the lowest possible reward that he will accept and the other side has not had to give any information whatever.
The memorandum indicates that there will also be provision for just how long someone can insist upon trying to get a job in the area for which they are qualified and trained. We spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on training young doctors, young architects, skilled craftsmen and the like and we are now saying that as little as seven days may be laid down in a jobseeker's agreement as the time within which he can seek jobs for which he is qualified and not be forced to become a dishwasher. A dishwashing job is an honourable job but whether we really want people who have been trained for many years to take such jobs is an open question and yet the jobseeker's agreement leaves that question entirely in the hands of an employment officer. However well disposed he or she may be, this puts a whiphand with the bureaucracy and it amazes me that any Conservative Government, of all governments, should so readily accept that.
I find the jobseeker's agreement, if I may say so, the most ambiguous, the strangest and the most misleading of all the parts of this troubling Bill. I hope that Members of this Chamber will consider carefully before dismissing this amendment because we could reframe it in terms of a genuine agreement reached voluntarily by both sides. Such wording would certainly lay many of my fears to rest—like the wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, at Second Reading—but certainly the memorandum does not bear out that interpretation and puts a much narrower and much more coercive slant on the whole concept of the jobseeker's agreement.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment would remove one important part of the jobseeker's allowance proposal that we are bringing before the Committee. It would remove the requirement that jobseekers should draw up and agree a jobseeker's agreement in order to receive a jobseeker's allowance. The agreement is a central feature of JSA. It will ensure that all claimants understand from the outset the conditions of entitlement to JSA. This is not the case at present and too often people are unaware of or misunderstand what is expected of them. The agreement is also a vital step in helping each individual decide, with the Employment Service, the best way for him or her to look for work. Making the agreement a condition of benefit ensures that each jobseeker will get the individual attention that he deserves.

617
The agreement will improve understanding of the labour market conditions of JSA by bringing them together in one place. It will be a record that the individual and the Employment Service can consult. I was not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was saying that if only I agreed to make this voluntary, he would be quite happy with that. Indeed I think he mentioned the current voluntary back-to-work-plan which the vast majority of jobseekers already complete, I presume because the vast majority see the benefit in doing so. I believe this amendment would deprive the jobseeker of an opportunity to focus on his best route back to work. This would damage the intention of the reforms, which is to maintain the individual's focus on the labour market.
We will discuss more of the detail of this matter when we discuss Clause 7. At the risk of repeating what will be said later, I wish quickly to outline some matters in order to answer one or two of the points that were made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Each agreement will set out what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the availability for work and the actively seeking employment conditions of JSA which will be contained in regulations made under Clause 6 of the Bill.
If the employment officer and the jobseeker cannot reach agreement—this perhaps answers the point made by the noble Earl—then regulations will provide that the proposed agreement can be referred at the instigation of either party to an independent adjudication officer. That officer will determine whether or not the proposed terms and conditions would allow the jobseeker to meet the availability and actively seeking employment conditions, and if it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with them. If the jobseeker is not content with the adjudication officer's determination, the intention is that the regulations will enable him to ask for his case to be reviewed by a second officer. If he is still dissatisfied, he can appeal to the social security appeals tribunal.
Therefore I do not believe that it is quite as coercive a document as perhaps we were being frightened into believing. I believe this document and this agreement are an important part in helping people back to work, which is certainly what we in the Government are trying to do. We are trying to help people find ways back into employment. We believe this agreement does that. I hope that with my explanation the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will withdraw his amendment but if we wish to maintain the record of the Committee—we have had two Divisions on the two amendments we have discussed so far—and if we have a Division, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: The Minister could go quite a long way to reassure us on the ground that we have been covering if he could give us an assurance that a claimant who is not satisfied with the jobseeker's agreement he is asked to sign would continue to enjoy benefit pending the hearing of the appeal to the adjudication officer, and if he could tell us that adjudication officers in future may be able to get through these cases and have time to hear
618
them properly in rather fewer than the 22 weeks, which the Minister referred to as the present duration. Those two points are vital; after that we can begin talking.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to say a brief word on this. I strongly support the words of the noble Earl. I think that what he suggests would go a long way to ease one's anxiety. I also believe that it would go a long way to relieve our anxiety if the word "agreement" was replaced by something more suitable. After all, we have heard from the Minister that this so-called agreement is going to adjudication. If something is adjudicated upon and one side does not agree but nevertheless has to abide by, and does abide by, that adjudication, it does not necessarily mean that he agrees with it. It is a judgment which has been imposed upon him. Therefore "agreement" is simply not a suitable word. If the Minister would consider substituting something which is more truthful than the word "agreement", I believe that would help a great deal.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps my noble friend should consider the use of a jobseeker's plan or a jobseeker's planned search because obviously this is a proposal between the agency and the individual seeking a job as to how best he can find a job. I do not think the word "agreement" is right. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on that.
Lord Rix: I have a question for the Minister that I pose wearing my British actor's Equity hat. Will actors seeking employment be made to enter into this jobseeker's agreement? As I am sure the Minister is aware, many actors can be out of work for long periods while actively seeking employment. I have never yet known a Jobcentre help an actor to obtain such employment. Therefore I am interested to know the wording that would be used in that particular agreement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am afraid I have to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I do not know a great deal about the lifestyle of actors other than what I sometimes read in the more popular press and I am sure that that represents the lifestyle of only a minority of actors. We are getting into the problem of detail. It is difficult to go into detail as regards hypothetical cases. However, if such an actor were to claim benefit, in his agreement his jobseeking would outline what he might do. I concede that there might not be too many advertisements for actors in Jobcentres. However, I believe there may occasionally be some. It perhaps depends on the grade of the actor. However, the top ones are probably earning so much money that I suspect they would not qualify for any of the benefits that we are discussing. Obviously going to theatrical agents or the like would be the way that an actor would actively look for work. I believe it would be perfectly acceptable for that to be included in an agreement. However, the person will have to sign the agreement. I believe that is how he will be able to indicate that he is actively seeking work.
I say in reply to the noble Earl that all vulnerable groups will have access to hardship payments immediately. I believe he referred to someone who was not prepared to sign an agreement and who wanted to

619
get a second opinion. Others will have access to hardship payments after two weeks but the vulnerable groups will have it immediately. I hope that answers the question that he posed to me.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, can he explain to me how one can be disentitled to a means-tested benefit without experiencing hardship?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are now beginning to go into hypothetical cases. I presume that the reason that someone does not wish to sign an agreement is one of principle. I would hope that we would then be able to conclude a second opinion quickly. The option is available. Members of a vulnerable group can be paid immediately under the hardship payments. For those who are not in a vulnerable group the period is two weeks. We believe that people ought to sign an agreement. We do not believe that they ought to be able to spin out not signing the agreement.
Lord McCarthy: I am beginning to get the measure of the noble Lord. He does not like being asked about hypotheses and, even more, he does not like being asked about detail. So we have to get between a hypothesis and the detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, does not seem to have heard of a back-to-work plan. He seems to think that the Employment Service works on the basis that you just sign on. I shall not say what it did, but it certainly does not work on that basis now. A lot more than signing on goes on now. There is a back-to-work plan. Much of the back-to-work plan is analogous to what the Government say they want to do with their new agreement. We do not see why that should be imposed by law, by fiat, through this Bill on the poor unemployed person. That is one of our main differences.
Before I come to what the Minister said, I can answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. After seven days the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would be asked to go and wash up or dig the roads, at any rate or any price. Otherwise he would receive no unemployment pay. He would get unemployment pay for seven days and then he would be out. If anyone says that there will be special arrangements for actors, the noble Lord knows very well that there will be no such special arrangements.
So we come to what the Minister actually said. He said what he said before. It is just as unsatisfactory and just an unconvincing. We do not see why a developed back-to-work plan needs to be put into legislation like this and imposed on unemployed people, forcing them more and more into quasi-judicial activities in order to try to get their rights. It is exactly the same issue. It does not involve hypotheses. It does involve a little detail, but we shall not press it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("except in the case of a disabled person").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and another of my amendments. Amendment No. 78. I do not propose to speak to Amendment No. 48. The noble Baroness is quite capable of doing that for herself.
Disabled people will be significantly affected by the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. In 1996–97 it is expected that between 150,000 and 190,000 disabled people will sign on following the replacement of sickness and invalidity benefit with the more restrictive incapacity benefit. The conditions for the jobseeker's allowance are that someone has to be capable of work, available for work and actively seeking work. Disabled people can face problems at each of those stages. Proving that steps are being taken to find work will become an issue for disabled people once they have been accepted as capable of and available for work.
I shall deal first with the category of capable of work. During the passage of the Bill through another place, Ministers stated that a decision on work capacity made by the Benefits Agency for incapacity benefits purposes would be accepted by the Employment Service, so there should be no problem of people falling between two stools. However, there is already some evidence, in a survey by RADAR and the Disability Alliance, that a third of people moving from invalidity benefit to sign on had problems in establishing a claim for unemployment benefit because they were not accepted as being fit enough to sign on or to be available for work.
As regards availability for work, the current rules allow people to place restrictions on their availability for work where those are reasonable given the person's physical or mental condition. If the restrictions are accepted as reasonable, the individual is exempt from the requirement applied to other claimants with restricted availability to show that he still has a reasonable prospect of finding work despite the restrictions.
As regards the actively seeking work test, once claimants have been accepted as capable of work and available for work they have to show that they are taking steps actively to seek work, which include contacting employers, looking in newspapers and drawing up a curriculum vitae, as well as other things. Those steps will form part of the jobseeker's agreement which has to be signed as a condition of receiving the jobseeker's allowance.
The amendment would exempt disabled people from having to show that they are actively seeking work. The aims of the jobseeker's allowance, as stated in the White Paper, include the tightening of the labour market conditions for receiving benefit. The amendment does not seek to undermine that aim but to limit its application.
The actively seeking work condition for receiving benefit was introduced only in 1989. However, it appears that more people are having their benefit disallowed for failing actively to seek work. The Unemployment Unit reports that between April and December 1994 some 20,000 claimants were disqualified for that reason—three times as many as in the previous year. I understand that at the same time the Chief Adjudication Officer's report shows that 92 per cent, of decisions to disqualify from benefit were unsatisfactory. A growth in numbers being disqualified for failing actively to seek work, together with an increase in disabled people signing on because they have failed the new all-work test for incapacity benefit, has given rise to concern that many disabled people could encounter problems in meeting the condition of actively seeking work.
Surely those people who only just fail the incapacity test by scoring less than 15 points and who are likely to have substantial disabilities should only have to show their availability for work rather than also to have to show that they have taken steps to find it.
Incapacity benefit regulations now allow disabled people the choice of signing on as unemployed where they would pass the incapacity test and so be entitled to incapacity benefit. The regulations were debated in Standing Committee in the other place on 23rd March. It appears from Hansard that such people will not have to pass tests of availability and actively seek work when signing on.
In the case of disabled people it is illogical on the one hand to exempt them from the requirement to show that they must have a reasonable prospect of finding work while on the other hand to require them to take steps to seek work.
Many disabled people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance are likely to have been on benefit for a number of years, in many cases six years or more according to the Department of Social Security's own research. Their skills are likely to be out of date and they will require considerable assistance in moving into work. That will not be achieved by making them demonstrate how many job applications they have completed or how many telephone calls they have made to potential employers. Similarly, merely pushing disabled people towards jobs which are not realistic or for which they are not ready may mean that they take the job and then have to leave, possibly then falling foul of the voluntary unemployment rules when reclaiming jobseeker's allowance.
Rather than forcing disabled people into demonstrating that they are taking active steps to find work, surely it would be a better use of resources to encourage the greatest possible use of the specialist advice of disability employment advisers and placing, assessment and counselling teams. Although the Employment Service has been given an extra £71 million to help people who come off incapacity benefit and sign on as unemployed during the next three years, it is of some concern that the estimated numbers referred for specialist help to the placing, assessment and counselling teams are fewer than one in five of the total
622
number expected to sign on. This suggests that the proposals will help only the minority of disabled people who sign on.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 78 in Clause 7. This clause introduces the jobseeker's agreement as a condition of receipt of the jobseeker's allowance. It stipulates that an agreement shall not be entered into unless the employment officer is satisfied that the conditions of availability for actively seeking work are satisfied. This amendment will remove the reference to the actively seeking work condition where the claimant is a disabled person. In moving the amendment to Clause 1, the arguments for removing the condition of actively seeking work from disabled people remain. This amendment seeks to carry through those arguments to the jobseeker's agreement itself. It will ensure that an employment officer cannot decide not to enter into the jobseeker's agreement if he considers that the disabled person cannot undertake the steps required in showing that he is actively seeking work. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We in this Chamber know perfectly well that disabled people are often eager to work and do so with great distinction. However, the range of work that they are able to do is inevitably reduced. For that reason the requirement of actively seeking work may become rather onerous. Perhaps the ability to work depends upon transport arrangements that may involve a carer or upon the job of a particular type becoming available which is consistent with the particular physical handicap. To require them to go about actively seeking work on a regular basis, when in that week there may not be any work that they can sensibly seek, is not a productive use of everybody's time.
I believe that the same argument applies to Amendment No. 78. That amendment allows a disabled person to keep the own occupation test for rather longer than others. The own occupation test is particularly important for somebody with a disability. He or she will have learnt all of the adjustments to carry on a particular type of job with a particular type of handicap. When you move the individual outside that situation a new learning process has to be gone through. Inevitably, that will take time. To give them a little longer in their own occupation test makes a good deal of sense. I am happy to support these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I also wish to support Amendment No. 5 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 78. This is the first time this evening that we have had the opportunity to discuss one of the major concerns expressed all round the House at Second Reading. I refer to the interface between what many of us believe to be a very unpleasant jobseeker's Bill and a very harsh new incapacity benefit. Both pieces of legislation share a lot of common features. They are both marked by an increased severity of test. If one passes the test a reduction in benefit follows. The Minister has never justified why both hurdles are required. If the problem is that people inappropriately claim benefit, to make the test more harsh, as both pieces of legislation will do, should be sufficient. There is then no need to cut benefit because people will have

623
earned that benefit. But if the problem is that people claim the wrong benefit because either invalidity benefit or unemployment benefit is too generous, government can align the benefit without making the test more harsh. To go for both—increased severity of test and reduced adequacy of direct benefit—is doubly unpleasant. The worst effect of all of this will be felt by those people who lie at the interface between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance.
We have heard nothing so far this evening to allay our fears —perhaps the Minister can do so this evening—that people who are refused incapacity benefit because they are regarded as being available to do some work may fail JSA on the actively seeking work or capability test, because in the judgment of benefit officers they are not able or willing to do enough work to meet the jobseeker's agreement. We believe that the Government have stumbled into a very simple mistake. They have adopted an either/or test. Either one is well or one is sick. If one is sick and, on the Government's test, one scores more than 15 points on functional aptitude, or 10 points on mental health, one receives incapacity benefit. If not, one gets JSA or nothing.
Clearly, many conditions lend themselves to a simple either/or test. One can either walk five yards or one cannot. Many other conditions are partially disabling or fluctuating. For example, a person who cannot stand for more than 30 minutes without having to sit gets seven points; a person who cannot raise his arm to his head to put on a hat or coat gets six points. Taken together, those two conditions will disqualify most people from most physical work, yet they get only 13 points and will fail the test for incapacity benefit and will have to seek work under the JSA agreement. On most judgments such a person is partially disabled, but there is no way in which to recognise that within the incapacity benefit as established by government. Others may have a fluctuating physical condition which equally does not fit the either/or test. MS is one such and severe angina may be another. Another may be a condition where pain or fatigue is cumulative but will not show up at the incapacity test. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will speak to this matter from much more experience and background than I can. For example, others may have mild learning difficulties or moderate mental health problems, such as depression or anxiety attacks. If such a person is actively seeking work and obtains it, the job may not be held down for very long. Three weeks later the person may be unemployed. It will be very hard to establish good cause in such a situation when he or she has been required to pass the jobseeker's test.
We need a much broader assessment of what constitutes being capable of work and therefore what constitutes reasonable availability for work and actively seeking work. We do not need just a functional points analysis. Age, general health, existing skills and employment history are all relevant, because those are the issues that determine the capacity, ability and availability to seek and hold work.
In today's overstocked labour market is it realistic to expect an employer normally to employ somebody who is over 50 in preference to somebody who is under 40,
624
or somebody with a record of poor health and interrupted employment over somebody who is fit, or somebody who can no longer do his old job and has no skills for any new job over somebody who is young, fit, keen, steady and qualified? In consequence, recent research has shown that over half of all disabled people who look for work do so for at least a year, and a further third take over three years to find a job. Yet such partially disabled people will have to show that they are capable of work and actively seeking it to qualify for JSA. If in the eyes of the Employment Service they appear to be unreasonably restrictive, as they may be if they have minor learning difficulties or minor mental health problems, which are quite hard for the unqualified to detect—these employment officers will be unqualified—those people will lose their JSA.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said, we need to ensure that anybody who has scored even some points on the incapacity test, though he may not have earned enough to qualify for incapacity benefit, is sympathetically and sensitively assessed by a qualified disability employment adviser. If the decision is then that that person is not capable of work within the framework of JSA, we must ensure that he can be passported into one of the other benefits and not left without income in the twilight world between the two.
I am confident that the Minister will wish to be sympathetic to the situation. But, as both the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is a major issue that will face us this summer. There are 190,000 people who currently receive incapacity benefit. They will come off incapacity benefit and have to present themselves for JSA. A further 80,000 people who would have obtained the benefit, in future will not do so. So a quarter of a million families may fall into that twilight area. It is one of the most worrying aspects of a deeply unpleasant Bill. I hope that tonight we can have from the Minister a reassuring answer to these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to me and to people who have a mild mental disability, people with a learning disability or people with mental health problems. I should like to clarify a point of which, perhaps, the Minister is not aware.
We have found over the years that the employment agencies have been singularly incapable of finding work for those who have a learning disability. That is why the Pathway Employment Service, which is supported by local authorities but is a MENCAP invention, came into being. It has been singularly successful in ensuring that people with a learning disability—some of those disabilities not so mild—have obtained and are indeed in open employment.
It is also true to say that the DRO's and possibly the disability employment advisers were not and are perhaps not well versed in the problems that face them with people who have a learning disability—as indeed they are not well versed in the problems faced with the employment of actors. Therefore, I hope that the Pathway Employment Service can be referred to in some

625
form or another, just as the disability employment advisers were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I believe that there will be need for a specialist agency in this particular Field unless extensive training is given to the disability employment advisers.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I agree with many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen when he moved the amendment and with points made by other Members of the Committee, although I express some doubts about whether this amendment is the right way to go about assisting the disabled.
Replying to the debate on Second Reading, when many noble Lords, including myself, raised those points, my noble friend Lord Inglewood said that:
"all JSA claimants must be available for employment, but we recognise that some people's mental or physical condition may cause them difficulties in making themselves available for the full range of employment opportunities. Therefore, we will make specific provision in JSA that they should be able to restrict their availability to the hours of work that they are able to undertake within the limits of their condition".—[Official Report, 3/4/95; col. 54]
I feel that it would be helpful to the Committee—certainly it would be helpful to me—if one of my noble friends were able to say a little more about what the Government mean by "specific provision". We have not so far heard a great deal about it. I recognise that many of the detailed points will have to be dealt with in regulations rather than by the Bill. But it would certainly guide me in considering my attitude to this amendment if, when the Minister comes to reply, he will fill out in a little more detail the intention behind the words "specific provision".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has just said. It is another Committee point which I hope the Minister will address when he comes to reply to the amendment. However, having heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, it seems to me very likely that the Government will accept this group of amendments. I very much hope that they will. On all sides of the Committee and in all political parties we have made slow, agonising and constructive progress toward reintegrating disabled people into our midst, not least as a result of the work of voluntary organisations such as the one headed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It would be a great step backwards if we did not recognise that disabled people, whether for mental or physical reasons, require more assistance to get work than do the rest of us.
Having said that, I want to raise a detailed Committee point, which is rather close to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. It is with regard to paragraph 33 of the memorandum from two departments. In that paragraph the departments submit that there can be exceptions made in the case of the test of availability for work. They in fact specify that the disabled form one of the groups—they also mention people with specific religious convictions—for whom availability of work can be restricted because of the condition of the
626
applicant. However, that condition is strictly limited to availability for work and does not appear to apply to actively seeking work. In setting out the detailed understanding of what is implied by "actively seeking work", no qualification is made in respect of the disabled or other special groups.
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he can give the Committee an assurance that the qualification which applies in the case of availability for work will also apply in the case of actively seeking work, for the reasons that have already been put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If the Minister cannot give us that assurance, I fear that the disabled will be among the victims of the Bill, which I am sure is not the intention of the Government, nor indeed of any other part of this Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can understand the thinking behind the three amendments and the points made in the debate on them. The amendments and many of the points made seek to recognise that the circumstances of people who have a disability need special consideration. I should like to assure the Committee that we want to include, not exclude from JSA, people with disabilities. To that end, we have given a commitment to take the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the JSA labour market rules. Because of that commitment, I believe that these amendments go too far and should be rejected. Perhaps I may explain why.
As I have said on a number of occasions and no doubt I shall continue to say it, it is important that those people who are claiming unemployment benefits—that will include the JSA—should keep in touch with the labour market and make every effort to get back to work. We recognise that disabled claimants may face particular difficulties in making themselves fully available and actively seeking work. That is why we intend to carry forward the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support. Those will allow a person with a mental or physical condition to place restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other conditions of employment which he is prepared to accept, where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me specifically about the restrictions on availability. As I said, the current arrangements will be carried forward. The acceptability of restrictions on availability will not depend on the individual demonstrating a reasonable prospect of securing work. The restriction should simply take into account his or her medical and physical condition.
Similarly, the actively seeking employment rules will continue to take account of the steps that a jobseeker has taken to find work in the light of his circumstances. Physical or mental limitations are just one of the factors that are taken into account when assessing whether the steps that he has taken are sufficient to meet the condition. I hope that that answers the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
We are also improving the actively seeking employment condition so that the list of acceptable steps a jobseeker can take to find work would be extended to

627
include steps to improve employability. At present only steps which amount to actual job search are listed as steps in the regulations. We shall be including appointments to meet with a specialist adviser, which in the case of the people we are discussing could be a disability adviser. That will be included in the list of acceptable steps a person can take to improve employability.
I believe it would be wrong for the law to treat people with disabilities as though they were not able to seek and find work. That would send a negative message, when we all want to send positive messages both to jobseekers with disabilities and to prospective employers about the importance of recognising the abilities of disabled people. It would risk overlooking a wealth of talent and skills which many people with disabilities have to offer. No more than any other jobseekers do people with disabilities want to sit around waiting for a job to fall into their lap or for someone else to find one for them.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen was concerned about people who are eligible for IB but who actually want to opt for a JSA. Of course they can do that, and I think I have already answered him in another debate in that respect. I think his question is: would their disabilities then be taken into account, having been in that position and having come across to JSA when the agreement was being made up, especially concerning availability and actively seeking work?
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend would allow me, he knows that this month incapacity benefit has come in and that a disabled person may not qualify for incapacity benefit if he is considered not disabled enough. What I am concerned about is that he may not then be allowed a jobseeker's allowance because the other officials might consider that he was not capable of getting a job. I do not want that kind of disabled person to fall between two different sets of civil servants.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise to my noble friend. I understand both sides of the coin and will address both sides of the coin. I actually thought he had posed the question I was trying to answer, and so I apologise. However, I shall carry on because I think it is important. People who are disabled may be perfectly able to do a whole spectrum of work and may in fact be eligible for IB but may not want to take it. They want to get back into work or to find work. In those circumstances, as I have said, officials in the Employment Service will be taking these disabilities into account when they decide on the availability aspect and on the actively seeking work aspect. I appear to be answering a question I have posed myself, but it is a good question even though I do pose it myself.
I should have thought that anyone who actually made that decision—I do not want to stay too long on IB but to move along to JSA—in order to get a job was going to be actively seeking a job and would not have too much difficulty in coming to an agreement with the disability adviser about the steps that he could take to get that job. That leads me on to say that we shall be ensuring that those who are leaving incapacity benefit—and this is my noble friend's point—will receive extra
628
help to get them into the labour market. The Employment Service will devote £71 million over the next three years to ease the transition between IB and unemployment benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggested that perhaps we were not very good at finding jobs for disabled people. Maybe we are not perfect at it, but I say to him, I hope in an encouraging way, that in 1993–94 53,000 disabled person were helped into jobs by the service.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: If I may just clear up one point with the Minister, I was of course referring mainly to people with a learning disability. They are the people who have the greater difficulties in finding jobs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was just coming on to say that I did not know to what extent that could be split between different forms of disability in the widest sense. But I have now heard the noble Lord's point twice about people with learning difficulties having special problems and I shall certainly discuss that with my colleagues and officials when we go over the various matters which have been raised today.
I now come to the point which my noble friend actually put to me and which was also put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about the person who fails the IB test and goes over to the Employment Service and asks to be put on to JSA. In those circumstances, could the JSA officials say, "No, you can't come here; you're disabled"? I think I have answered this question before in at least two debates: once on the regulations on IB—in fact, twice on those regulations—when I tried to make clear to your Lordships that the two benefits will be so aligned that no one will fall between two stools. If someone does not satisfy the IB test, the Employment Service cannot refuse them access to JSA on the grounds that they are disabled. So there is no double jeopardy there, and I hope that that assurance will help your Lordships.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am sure he is at one with us in wanting to prevent what I think the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to as the "two stools" problem. However, I believe the noble Lord has misrepresented where the problem lies. It is not that someone will turn up and be told by the employment officers, "You're disabled, go away"; but that a person who has so far regarded himself, or defined himself, as disabled because he has been receiving invalidity benefit but has failed to qualify for incapacity benefit nevertheless considers himself to be partially disabled and therefore has an appropriate right to restrict various activities that nonetheless the employment officer thinks he ought to engage in. It may be bus transport; it may be travel distance away from home; it may be the hours he would have to work; it may be whether he has a companion; or it may be a host of things which are part of his definition of being partially disabled.
I fear that it is particularly when you are dealing with mental health problems that difficulties arise. It is much easier when there are clear physiological or orthopaedic

629
disabilities which are easily perceived and understood across the table. It is when someone has failed the incapacity test on grounds of perhaps mild learning difficulty or moderate mental health disability and then goes on to impose availability for work restrictions which an unqualified employment officer thinks are unreasonable that the problem will occur. What will the Minister do to ensure that such a problem is sympathetically resolved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I like to think that I tried to address that point in the first part of my contribution. I apologise for going over it again because I might have been doing it in general terms, but obviously it would apply to someone who had failed the IB test but who had some degree of incapacity and who then came to JSA. I explained that we are carrying forward current provisions on unemployment benefit and income support which allow people with a mental or physical condition to place restrictions on the nature, the hours, the rate of remuneration, the locality or other conditions of employment which he is prepared to accept and where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. As far as actively seeking employment is concerned—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: May I intervene again? Would that be "reasonable" in view of his condition as certified by whom?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That has to be a matter for the official in the Employment Service, who will have in front of him—my memory in fact suggests that it may be an automatic transfer, but certainly there would be available a document that would indicate the degree of incapacity the doctors had found in the IB test when they examined the person. Therefore the officers in the Employment Service will have the information in front of them from those doctors in addition to what the person tells them himself.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just to clarify a further point, would a person with a learning disability be allowed to undertake the job interview for the jobseeker's agreement with an advocate being present? I am sure the Minister would agree that people with a learning disability can often be open to suggestions which can be made across the table. They might accept things which frankly were not really to their benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that in those circumstances a person would be able to have somebody present to help. I shall check that, and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister again for giving way. This is Committee stage but it is something which is of major concern to us. I want to refer to the other group of claimants with which we are particularly concerned—that is, those with mild or moderate mental health problems. Under the medical test one needs 10 points to be eligible for incapacity benefit. Somebody who, for example, has a fear of going out alone would perhaps score two or three points and
630
somebody who suffers from sudden panic or anxiety attacks may obtain two or three points. In other words, they would fail the incapacity benefit test. They then come to JSA and most jobs would require them to go out alone in order to go to work; most jobs would require them not to be vulnerable to sudden panic attacks.
It seems to me that the employment officer, merely having in front of him the information that such a person scored only five or six points on the mental health test, may reasonably regard him as being available for a much wider range of work than realistically that person can do given his or her mental health problem. What will happen in that situation? An unqualified employment officer may try to impose on somebody with a mild mental health problem a wider range of jobs than that person can reasonably apply for or hold down. If the claimant does not accept that as part of the jobseeker's agreement, the entitlement to benefit will be lost until or after an appeal has been made and, it is to be hoped, upheld. Can the Minister clarify that situation for us?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am being asked quite detailed questions. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that my view on that matter was the correct one. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, poses a more difficult question. When we get into the hypotheticals I need to look at the points system to see whether someone would fail the IB test because they are so badly mentally handicapped—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a mental health problem.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise; their mental health problem is such that they are unable to go out of doors, and so forth. I should like to study that situation before giving a definitive reply across the Dispatch Box.
I recognise the pictures that are occasionally drawn of officials and various agencies of the Government as being little Hitlers. That is not a fair reflection of most of them. There are probably a few little Hiders everywhere, if I may put it like that. However, most people try to do a good job—even in the Government, I am told—for the claimant in front of them.
In trying to help the noble Baroness without giving a yes or no answer to a hypothetical case, perhaps I can say that if somebody who is an IB leaver makes a claim for JSA, then, as I said a moment ago though I cannot remember in response to whom, the disallowance notice and the Benefits Agency medical service's note would be provided as long as the client gave written consent. I must add that slight caveat. But if the client gave consent, then we would make sure that the documents were available to the Employment Service. If an employment officer thinks that the case is beyond him, for example, then he will also have access to specialist advice from the placing and counselling teams called PACTs, and from the disability employment advisers.
I do not want to go too much further on the hypothetical question raised by the noble Baroness. Evidence will be available from the test; specialist

631
advice will be available if an employment officer decides that the case is too difficult for him. If he wants to take more expert advice, then that advice will be available to him and he can take that advice before coming to a conclusion along the lines that I tried to indicate in the main body of my speech. We hope in the regulations that we can carry forward some of the things currently in unemployment benefit and income support and also take account of disability when deciding on "actively seeking". Ultimately, the adjudication officers and the system of review exist to make sure that nobody in the first instance makes a totally unjustified and unreasonable decision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the Minister will once again kindly give way. That explanation is helpful and I understand the Minister's difficulty regarding the detail of individual cases. But following on the theme addressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier, can he assure us that anybody coming off incapacity benefit, invalidity benefit or disqualified from incapacity benefit but who has some points, though not sufficient to register them eligible for the benefit, will continue to receive their JSA? If an employment officer under the JSA agreement wishes to disqualify them and the claimant intends to appeal, can the Minister say that they will continue to receive the benefit until the appeal is heard?
We are talking about a particularly vulnerable group of people who were eligible for a benefit in the past but from which they are now disqualified because they have not met the IB or medical test. We are not talking about bad faith, scroungers or people abusing the system. These people have come into the JSA. An inexperienced employment officer may wish to disqualify them from the JSA on the grounds that he thinks that they are making too large a claim for the incapacity suffered by virtue of their minor mental health problem. They may wish to challenge that and go to appeal. Can the Minister assure us that in that case the most vulnerable of people will not lose their JSA benefit while the procedure is going through?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I can ask him to allow me to give an example, since he asked for examples which were not hypothetical. In my former constituency there was a large home for people who suffered from epilepsy. A number of them were able to obtain jobs. But epilepsy is precisely the kind of disease which occurs from time to time where somebody would not obtain adequate points to satisfy the full requirements to qualify for full disablement benefit, yet it is exactly the kind of condition where an employer may refuse to accept somebody who suffers from it. I plead that the Minister gives due consideration to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. This group above all groups should not be disentitled to benefit—they have no other means of existence—until such time as there has been an adjudication on the morality and justice of their claim.
Earl Russell: While the Minister considers that situation, perhaps I can make a brief intervention which
632
may save the time of the Committee by my not needing to speak at all to Amendment No. 6, that also being concerned with the two stools issue.
I accept the justice of what the Minister says—that he has given us assurances on this matter twice. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, at Second Reading of the incapacity Bill, gave us another. They were warm and full assurances. In terms of goodwill, I believe there is nothing between us. Yet the cases keep on coming. We need to work out why.
I am aware of a couple of cases which may help to illustrate what is going wrong. They are both CAB cases. One concerns someone who had been on invalidity benefit for five years and had it withdrawn. The unemployment office refused to allow her to sign on because she was not really fit. In the other case the claimant's invalidity benefit was withdrawn. On the unemployment benefit forms he said that he did not consider himself to be fit for work so his claim for unemployment benefit was refused. These are all people of limited capacity—I believe that is the crucial way to think of it—who are being sent along to the employment officers who are being asked to tackle the job of finding them work. That may be a thankless task because it may be extremely difficult.
I am reminded of what used to happen under the old Poor Law when the poor were meant to be sent back to their parishes. When they arrived there, the parish, finding a lot of destitute people who perhaps had not been seen for 20 years, were always apt to say, "She does not come from here, she comes from that parish over there". In the present situation we have employment officers with a great flood of business sent in to them reacting rather like Dame Partington by trying to push it out. It is a natural human reaction. It is no fault whatever of Ministers. But we need to think of how to stop it. Guidance may be part of it and, since this is an immense body of work, additional staffing may help also. I do not know if my contribution was helpful, but I hope so.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that I can remember all the points which have just been wished on me at what I hope is the tail end of the debate on this series of amendments. In the hope that I can perhaps persuade the noble Earl to withdraw his next amendment, I have been able to find in this fairly complicated business what I might call the "legalistic answer" to the assurances that I have given about the question of "between two stools". Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill says,
"The question whether a person is capable or incapable of work shall be determined, for the purposes of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of Part XIIA of the Benefits Act".
That is what links the two together. I hope that it will mean that nobody will get caught between the two stools. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Earl. It is also what I would have said as regards his next amendment.

633
I believe I was asked about appeals. I presume that I am being asked about someone who goes onto JSA and who is appealing against a JSA decision and is not appealing against being taken off incapacity benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to answer this matter in some detail. I was putting to him the case of someone who has lost incapacity benefit and who is not contesting that. He has six to eight points or so, and he has come over to JSA. However, because he still carries with him that partial disability which originally rendered him eligible for invalidity benefit, he believes that he must restrict his availability for work to a greater degree than the Employment Service thinks reasonable. That service then regards him as failing to meet a JSA agreement or not actively seeking work. It therefore disqualifies him from benefit. He may then appeal against that on the grounds that he is acting reasonably, given the nature of his disability, and that his restrictions are reasonable. I am asking that while that is being contested, can that individual at least remain on benefit and not find him or herself both partially disabled and without income?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In the light of an answer that I gave a few moments ago about the fact that the detail in the form of the medical evidence from the Benefits Agency medical service would come over to the Employment Service, and the fact that there are specialists available in the service to give advice in this particular field, I hope that the officer and the claimant will be able to come to an agreement. I have been asked about the situation if they do not so agree and I suppose I must go on to try to answer that. I am not sure that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with the answer, but I believe that it is the same as the answer that I gave earlier this afternoon; namely, that if they come into the vulnerable group then they continue with benefit until the matter is resolved. If they do not come into that group I believe that there is a two-week period before they receive —I have forgotten the name of the benefit—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is partial benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I hope that that answers the question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That benefit is a 40 per cent. reduction even on the basic income support level.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is a reduction, but it is an indication in more general terms of the fact that we do not want people to appeal automatically in all cases. I said that I thought that the noble Baroness would not consider my answer to be very satisfactory, but I have answered her question.
Lord Swinfen: I would very much like to read the whole of this debate before deciding what to do. This evening I shall withdraw my amendment. However, I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is himself beginning to question some of the legislation which is before us. He gave me the impression that he is beginning to ask questions on behalf of disabled people
634
because he answered a question which I had not asked. I hope that he will encourage other Members of the Government to begin doing exactly the same thing. It will make the debates in this House a great deal less difficult and shorter if the needs of disabled people are considered at an earlier stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Care of the Mentally Ill: Matthew Trust Report
7.6 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading The Marquess of Reading rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take in respect of the findings of the Matthew Trust's report, Victims of Care.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the homeless beggars on the streets of every city in the land bear testimony to the creation of an underclass in our sophisticated society. Many of these people are alienated from the mainstream by virtue of their poverty and powerlessness.
I wish to speak today about one particularly troubled section of that underclass whose plight is eloquently described in the Matthew Trust's report, Victims of Care. These are people who suffer from severe mental illness. They feel themselves to be utterly cut adrift, not only from their fellow citizens, but also from the welfare services which have been established to care for them. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us recently, the civilisation of a society can be judged by how well it treats its weakest members. I fear that we may be judged rather harshly on that score.
Only days before the Matthew Trust's report, Victims of Care, was launched here at the Palace of Westminster, the Department of Health acknowledged that people continue to fall through the safety net devised by the state to protect the most vulnerable in society. As a national charity concerned with mental health and penal reform, the Matthew Trust has a finger on this pulse. Its report describes how people fall through the net and considers the human consequences.
The purpose of my Question today is to discover how the Government intend to repair their safety net and to learn what procedures will be adopted to weave the knowledge and resources of the voluntary sector into a more comprehensive caring system. Almost every day we learn from the press and media of some fresh tragedy concerning the mentally ill. The shattered lives of the mentally distressed are made more difficult when

635
insensitive coverage generates prejudice and fear among the public. That in turn makes provision of special care for the mentally ill a more problematic issue for the authorities.
Noble Lords may recall that I have the privilege to chair the advisory council of the Matthew Trust. When I addressed the House about the issue of patient confidentiality two years ago, I mentioned the trust's study of press coverage of mental illness. I am pleased to inform the House that the trust has continued its investigations and is planning a further report on the matter.
Every day the Matthew Trust receives appeals for help from social workers on behalf of clients whose urgent need cannot be met by the statutory services. Only last week the trust heard about a mentally ill young man whose home had been stripped by thieves while he was in hospital. The only financial help he can now obtain is a loan which has to be repaid from his meagre invalidity benefit. His benefit did not stretch to insurance cover, so he could not make a claim for his loss. The trust learnt from his social worker that, of the 441 clients for whom she was responsible, only 5 per cent. could afford contents insurance. That is a shocking statistic. That young man is not responsible for his mental condition, nor for his current predicament. Luckily, the Matthew Trust has been able to help him.
The report also details the work and the procedures of the trust, which has been championing the needs of the mentally ill for almost 20 years. It was commissioned by the trust's director, Mr. Peter Thompson, whose sterling work in this field and other areas has been acknowledged in this House on a number of occasions. He took the unusual step of opening the trust's files to independent scrutiny because calls upon the trust's limited resources had rocketed since the Government began to implement their plans for what is called "care in the community".
The Matthew Trust operates as a donor of last resort. It cannot provide help unless and until the resources of statutory and other agencies have been tapped. The vast majority of applications for help come via social workers, and applicants must supply evidence that all other routes have been exhausted.
The provision of modest financial assistance to mentally ill people in desperate need was once a relatively minor aspect of the trust's activities, but demand has increased by 400 per cent. since the publication in 1988 of the White Paper, Caring for People. Grant aid from the trust to individuals increased from less than £3,500 in the financial year 1989–90 to almost £14,000 in 1993–94. Indeed, the trust disbursed almost £25,000 to 312 individuals during the calendar year 1994. Some 2,000 others had to be turned away because the trust lacked the financial resources to be able to help them.
We are told that a healthy economy is built upon society's efforts to match demand with supply. By that measure our welfare services are sick indeed. One of the most salient observations made in the report is that the mentally ill are the least likely to be able to make appropriate demands upon the welfare services. That is precisely their special problem. Indeed, it would appear
636
from the report that changes in the structure of care provision have bewildered even those who are responsible for providing it. The report documents the increased demand upon voluntary agencies such as the Matthew Trust since the new care in the community policy was introduced and draws attention to the lack of resources available to the voluntary sector.
I commend the report to your Lordships because it offers a rare glimpse of the humdrum and extreme crises faced by those who approach the trust for help. It also draws attention to an unfortunate practice which has grown up over the years in the face of mounting criticism of government health policies. I refer to the practice of calling in aid statistics to smother the voices of the poor and neglected, and the use of expensive consultants to supply apparently independent justification for policies that in the public eye seem to be failing. Public relations is no substitute for patient care.
The Department of Health has acknowledged that Victims of Care is a thought-provoking document, but that is all. That is not enough, because the well-being of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people in the community, and the prospects for their families, will be determined by the adequacy of the Government's response to the report.
Only last November, in a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, which is quoted in the report, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege,
"recognised the value of the work being done by the Trust in a difficult field of care, and appreciated the practical support it is able to give to individuals who are in crisis".
I am very grateful for that.
However, the Matthew Trust has been refused grant aid from the Government precisely because it gives financial help to those who are failed by the system. Indeed, the latest rejection came only last month and implied that the trust's work did not fit into,
"the Ministers' current priorities within mental health services".
Perhaps the Minister can offer us some enlightenment about those priorities, especially since the Matthew Trust was asked by government officers for 30 copies of its report in advance of the debate—and was expected to supply them free of charge.
I have been critical of the Government because they carry the major responsibility for failings in the welfare system that they manage on our behalf. Because my overriding concern is for the mentally ill, I feel I must comment also upon an apparent lack of co-operation between the many organisations that now exist to protect their interests. It seems to me that a more efficient and effective supplementary care system would emerge if the various agencies pooled resources and skills rather than pursuing narrow vested interests. After all, if the mentally ill are their prime concern, nothing should stand in the way of promoting their best interests.
What is evident from the report is the need for a Standing Committee to encourage better liaison and co-operation between voluntary agencies of all sizes and specialisms in the field of mental health care. The combined experience of such a Standing Committee

637
would provide the Government with unrivalled policy advice on how to improve support systems for the mentally ill.
These victims of care languish in a world known only to their broken minds. Those of us who, by the grace of God, live happier lives have much to be thankful for. We also have a duty to those less fortunate than ourselves.
I am sure the irony of the closing remarks in the Matthew Trust's Report will not be lost on your Lordships:
"Many of the funds that find their way into the lives of people whom contemporary society has rejected come from Trusts established by past generations. Those who are forced to live on the margins of society must rely upon the generosity of long-dead patrons for the basic necessities of life".
We cannot leave it to those benefactors to contribute to the well-being of current generations. The problems of the mentally ill may seem intractable, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Government of the day have a duty to make good any shortcomings that are identified in the services they provide in our name.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the powerful speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I think that his great-grandfather would have been very pleased with that speech. The question will be asked: did you know him? I did not, but within my lifetime he was an important man. After all, his great-grandfather had the extraordinary record of being Attorney-General, Lord Chief Justice, Viceroy of India and Foreign Secretary. I can think of only one person who can beat that record and that is the father of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who will wind up for my party. He was Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. With that one exception, I believe that the record of the noble Marquess's great-grandfather is unique.
I know that this is a day of much pride for those who for quite a few years have supported the Matthew Trust in one way or another. I refer particularly to Mr. Peter Thompson, who has been mentioned and who emerged from Broadmoor—not a promising start for a new career—without influence, money or credit and who built up the Matthew Trust—and here we are in the House of Lords, a solid institution, devoting some time to discussing its report. I know that it will be a source of satisfaction to the trust that it is to be the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government because her heart and soul engagement in these matters is recognised everywhere.
However, after those generally acceptable observations, some of the points made by the noble Marquess are thought-provoking—a phrase used by the department about the report—and they should worry those who rule our affairs in this area. We all know that community care is a fine ideal, and I am not disparaging it. It is much easier said than done, of course. People come out of institutions and it is said that the community can now look after them. What is the community? It
638
may mean the local authorities; it may mean the general public, which does not have great concern and is not usually quick to help the mentally ill.
At any rate, community care is a great advance in embryo, but, as the Government now admit, people do fall, and will always fall, through the safety net. As the noble Marquess suggested, it may well be that better organisation of and co-operation by the authorities would minimise the number of those who fall through the safety net, and so would greater resources. But when all is said and done, some people will fall through the safety net because there is no obvious statutory criterion under which their cases can be brought by lawyers.
I could think of a number of cases. I have mentioned one or two in previous debates. There was a lady whom I was hoping to meet, but I could not meet her because I imagine that she was not well enough to see me. She needed a nebuliser. I do not know much about nebulisers. They are required if one is to breathe properly when suffering from certain forms of asthma. I had asthma for a time. It is about the only thing I have ever been cured of. I needed an inhaler. Luckily that has all passed, but it has not passed for this poor lady. She needs a nebuliser. What happens? No one will provide one until eventually her GP, out of the kindness of his heart, said that he would lend her one for three evenings a week for a short time.
This is where the Matthew Trust comes in. One might call it a refuge of last resort. It paid £280 for a nebuliser. One might say that that was very good of the trust. But one is bound to ask the Minister—I have given her short notice of it but I think she guessed that it was coming in view of earlier discussions—why the Matthew Trust should receive no help from the Government. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship and MIND receive government help. They are both fine, large and powerful bodies. But the Matthew Trust, which of course was started much more recently with much less backing, receives no help.
I always hate putting awkward questions to the Minister because I do not think she should be put in an awkward position as her intentions are so good. Nevertheless, she is a Minister and she is accustomed to awkward questions. Will she tell us why the Matthew Trust should not receive help? Patients are sent to the trust from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and MIND. The Matthew Trust takes them on and pays for them. The larger organisations receive help, but the Matthew Trust does not.
It might be said that that is because the Matthew Trust gives financial help. Is that the reason? If so, it is a funny reason, because many voluntary bodies give a great deal of help of one kind or another, whether or not it is called financial. They render a great service. So I am bound to press the Minister on that point. Why should not the Matthew Trust receive help when the large organisations which send their patients to the Matthew Trust receive it?
Looking at the whole matter more broadly, it is a gratifying day not just for the Matthew Trust but for everyone who is concerned with the mentally ill that the House of Lords should devote even a short time to the

639
subject. That will always be a great source of pride to the Matthew Trust and to all who take a genuine interest in the mentally ill.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am depressed to hear that the Matthew Trust had to produce copies of the report free of charge. When Members of Parliament ask to discuss important reports I should have thought that they might well be paid for. The report makes depressing reading with its lists of people who have gone to the trust for help, in particular the list of those whom it had to turn away. In every example it appears that the solution to the immediate problem was simple: a new fridge, money for clothing—all very basic stuff. It is depressing that those people should slip through the net of the official channels, and even more depressing that the work of voluntary organisations such as the Matthew Trust cannot, despite their best efforts, meet the total demand for help.
The report clearly demonstrates that the hard work, dedication and commitment of the Matthew Trust to the forgotten in our society has its limits. The system cannot be functioning well if even the longstop, last-resort organisations, which are there to pick up the pieces when all else fails, cannot cope.
Community care is the right policy. Whatever our misgivings about individual circumstances, about the level of funding, and the Government's organisation of the implementation of the community care programme, we support the concept. The mentally ill should not be treated uniformly, but as individuals with rights to determine their own future, and live and join with as wide a society as they possibly can. Community care is a laudable aim.
The report states that the trust's grant-making role has increased by 400 per cent. since the 1988 White Paper, Caring for People. What we have seen since that time is a radical change which has profound effects on the users of the services, on carers, on health, social work, social services professionals, and on the way in which voluntary groups operate.
The system as it stands, works, as far as it does, because of the dedication of the people involved, but the resources available are patchy and so the provision of help is patchy. What is needed is a comprehensive and systematic approach to the care of people. As my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, who has firsthand experience of working with the mentally ill, said on Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill:
"Community care plans require the co-operation of social work departments, housing, health board staff, voluntary agencies and carers—and the use of their funds".—[Official Report, 16/3/95; col. 954.]
A comprehensive and systematic approach has to include the whole range of help from housing, education, and leisure facilities, as well as medical support. Included should be 24-hour crisis lines so that no distressed person is denied immediate help, and community mental health teams must be backed up by sufficient beds in local general hospitals. We must also give to carers adequate support such as respite care, training and a separate assessment of their needs.
640
A fully comprehensive package would come with a price tag. We are not calling for unlimited money to be thrown at the system, but if the Government are serious about the issue of mental health, and if they are prepared to back up the community care initiative, resources will be needed. Restrictions on local authority budgets at the moment are such that, with the best of intentions, the system will never be fully functional unless there is more money.
On a different note, the campaign launched this week to counter ignorance among the general public about the nature of mental illness should be given every encouragement. There is no doubt that ignorance in fear of mental illness within society as a whole gravely hinders the effectiveness of care in the community. Moving people back into the community is a departure from the health service as it has existed for a long time. As regards such people, the health service provided a system of controlling them and preventing them from harming themselves and others rather than doing anything more positive.
The health service is dealing with acute cases and it is used to doing so. Now the community must care and we must ask whether communities are ready to care. Could there have been more preparation of the general public before the long-stay institutions began to be closed? Adequate care for the mentally ill is not an easy issue. Care in the community is the right policy but it needs to be properly resourced. The work of organisations such as the Matthew Trust are vital in the overall package of care and we should give them every support.
I am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for drawing our attention to this issue and for doing so in such an able and telling speech. I hope that the desperate examples of need found in the report will soon be a thing of the past because the Government have responded to the Question that is being asked of them tonight.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for introducing the debate and drawing our attention to the important report of the Matthew Trust. It deals with those who are among the most vulnerable members of our society. The report describes them as having lives dominated by a struggle against poverty and illness, which happens daily.
It is especially opportune that we should have the debate when, in terms of the parliamentary timetable, we are simultaneously considering the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. Much of the report is relevant to the topics included in that Bill. Noble Lords will remember that the aims of the Bill include additional legal supervision of those who live in the community following discharge from institutions for the mentally ill.
Noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate, and those who read the Official Report, will remember that many speakers dealt with the need for extra practical support and help for people with severe

641
mental illness living in the community. They saw that as a greater priority than more legal powers. That is confirmed by the personal stories and details that are included in the Victims of Care report. Indeed, on Second Reading of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Longford and I quoted from the report in order to demonstrate the burdens that agencies of this kind were having to assume.
All noble Lords who have spoken have agreed that we want community care to succeed. We see it as the way forward and of dealing with the mentally ill. We have all supported the closure of the long-stay institutions but the vision of how we cope with such vulnerable people must be properly resourced. In my opinion, it must be supported largely by public money.
One of the most sad facts in the report is that applications to the Matthew Trust have increased in an extraordinary fashion since the community care arrangements were changed. That was mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The Matthew Trust describes its role as being as a last-stop voluntary agency. At the same time as we have this extraordinary increase in applications to organisations in the voluntary sector such as the Matthew Trust, we are told by the Mental Health Foundation that statutory sector funding across the country for community care for the mentally ill is stable and in some places it may be falling.
We know that the number of people who need such care in the community is increasing. In large cities such as London they may be discharged prematurely from institutions as a result of bed shortages. Noble Lords will remember the information that has been given in answer to various Questions tabled in this House. Indeed, it emerged again at the Second Reading of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. The evidence shows that, for example, in London some of the acute sector mental health hospitals have what is called a 120 per cent. or 130 per cent. bed occupancy. I found that concept difficult to understand until it was explained to me that doctors who run those units could admit 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. more patients if they had the beds. The demand exists but they simply do not have the resources to meet it. Therefore, one often has the suspicion that people are living in the community in circumstances that their health does not appropriately allow for.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, asked for a government response. All noble Lords—in particular my noble friend Lord Longford—would be more optimistic than normal to expect a response from the Minister tonight suggesting that a large new injection of resources would be made available either for the acute-sector care of the mentally ill or for community care. It is worth reminding your Lordships that the Government have said that the new Bill which we are now discussing will need no further financial provision and that the new form of care that the Bill will provide should be encompassed by the resources which local authorities and local health authorities already have.
Would it be possible for the Department of Health to offer guidance or a code of practice—in other contexts the Minister has told us that these have great force
642
within the health service—to establish some of the provisions that would make the work of organisations such as the Matthew Trust more successful not in terms of their aims but in dealing with the large number of people who go to them for help? Perhaps I may suggest three practical ways in which that could be addressed. Perhaps it would be possible, for example, for the Department of Health to issue guidance to establish limited caseloads for community psychiatric nurses so that they were not battling with huge numbers of people to the detriment of each individual. I appreciate that it would be more expensive to start on a general basis but it should be possible to establish crisis homes or hostels where very ill people could be looked after perhaps on a temporary basis while some clinical or practical crisis was dealt with.
Another solution, which would be relatively inexpensive, is that people who fall into the category of being severely mentally ill, but who are nonetheless struggling to survive and are struggling against the daily problems of mental illness and poverty, could be given crisis cards so that they had ready access to the types of service that we are discussing. As was mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, the report contains the notorious comment, made last November by those in the Department of Health, that:
"Facilities for care of the mentally ill in the community exist. But many of these people don't come to see the agencies responsible for their care".
As the report commented, that is a staggering remark which encapsulates the problem that the report seeks to highlight, because the mentally ill are those least able and least likely to seek appropriate help when it is most needed.
The strength of the report is that, in addition to giving powerful and saddening individual personal anecdotes about people's experiences, it has drawn together a number of authoritative sources and commentaries on the present state of community care for the mentally ill.
Perhaps I may conclude my brief remarks by quoting from two of the reports that are cited in Victims of Care. The first is from the Health Committee in another place, whose report was entitled Better Off in the Community? It is right to emphasise that there was a question mark at the end of its title. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has referred already to the question of the new funding arrangements for that type of care in the community. As is mentioned in the Matthew Trust report, the Health Committee concluded that the current funding formula:
"very substantially under-estimates the extra need for mental health services within the more socially deprived inner-city areas".
The 1994 report of the Mental Health Foundation, when talking about resources, pointed out that:
"A lack of resources is such a common complaint from every quarter that it can easily be ignored as just further professional pleading. But the mental health arena is crying out for more resources, stretched beyond reasonable measure in far too many areas. This is serving as a constraint on what can be done for any one person but, much more importantly, is hindering the proper planning and investment services that would bring greater savings in the long run".

643
It is very helpful that we should have this extremely authoritative report before us from the Matthew Trust, which is an important organisation. I should like to thank the trust for its extraordinarily good work within the community. The report draws together the very sad stories of individual victims of care but it also gives us an authoritative commentary from many sources about what is happening in the community. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will be able to make some practical suggestions as to how the Government could take action to meet the points that have been raised, because this problem is demonstrably becoming a crisis.
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Reading for introducing this important debate on the care of mentally ill people in the community with such perception and insight. I refer in particular to the Matthew Trust. The subject is one of great concern but, equally, it is one of great complexity. Your Lordships' debate has not only done justice to that complexity but has also taken the matter further with customary perception.
Mental illness has received much attention over the last few months and has at times been a source of controversy in the media. The Government recognise their responsibilities to people with mental illness, who have for many years been a priority group. We are committed to providing safe and effective care, whether it is in the community, in hospitals or elsewhere. We are also committed to removing the stigma which is sometimes attached to that condition and to enabling the millions of people who experience mental illness to fulfil their potential and have easy access to the services that they need. The Government fully support the public awareness campaigns referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, being run this week by the Daily Express and the Royal College of Psychiatrists and in respect of Radio 4 and BBC2 we are giving financial help and advice.
However, the difficulty of turning caring intentions into effective services is not to be underestimated. There is no single blue-print for psychiatry. The Government believe that those working in the field are best placed to develop effective local services which are responsive to local needs. Those services will make full use of the range of facilities available and the high quality care which the different agencies and professions can offer.
Effective partnerships between the statutory and voluntary sectors are essential for that. Each agency has its own unique expertise and by working with others can provide a complementary and comprehensive range of services, a point made by my noble friend in his far-ranging speech. The Government recognise the importance of those partnerships and our Guide to Inter-Agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally Ill People refers to the important role of the voluntary sector. The draft guide has been warmly welcomed and we hope to issue the final version shortly.
644
I hope that that will go a little way towards meeting some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
The Matthew Trust is widely respected for its work, giving financial assistance to those who are in need, as well as offering counselling and other services. The Government share that respect for the trust's professionalism and its commitment.
Its report Victims of Care is a useful contribution to our understanding of mental illness. We shall certainly consider its findings carefully. But as the report itself acknowledges, the anecdotal experiences it records often raise more questions than they offer solutions to. One example of that is that the increased demand on the trust's services referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, may not simply be a result of more unmet need. It may show a greater awareness of the trust's work. That is a likely explanation of the doubling in applications received between 1993 and 1994.
The report makes a number of recommendations for the income support and Social Fund systems and I shall make sure that these are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. One does not wish to diminish the cases of genuine need which the report highlights, but the 2,300 applications for financial help received by the trust last year should be set against the overall prevalence of schizophrenia, which is between 250,000 and 300,000 in the UK.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked why the Government have not given financial support to the trust by way of a Section 64 grant. The noble Earl has been extremely generous in his personal remarks about my intentions and I shall answer his questions to the best of my ability, but I sense that he will be disappointed. We have considered the trust's applications for a core grant very carefully but, as I am sure your Lordships will understand, decisions about grants are never easy. The amounts applied for always exceed the resources available, despite the fact that in the field of mental illness this year alone we allocated some £2.3 million for the voluntary section. But we have a clear policy to give priority to organisations which need pump-priming to help them become established or to develop new initiatives. The Matthew Trust is a well-established organisation. It has been carrying out its work for nearly 20 years. Over that time it has frequently shown its ability to raise funds elsewhere and it has a good record in containing administrative overheads and in fund-raising. But however deserving an organisation is, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that our resources are finite.
As your Lordships know, care in the community is not simply about money, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said in his very comprehensive speech, money is important. I assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to funding mental health services where they are needed and to promoting comprehensive services to meet individuals' differing needs. Mental health spending is currently £2.5 billion per year—higher than it has ever been in any previous year. Hospital and community health funding has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79

645
and social services funding for mentally ill people has risen by 171 per cent. in real terms over the same period. We will continue to give priority to mental health funding. This year the mental illness specific grant gave local authorities an extra £36 million to supplement £14 million which they invested in new initiatives. This year we will increase that grant by approximately 10 times the rate of inflation to £47.3 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, raised the question of premature discharge from hospitals because of the shortage of beds. We recognise that there are severe pressures on beds, in particular in London. That is why we have asked the Mental Health Task Force to look specifically at that whole question. It may not be that more beds are needed, but better management of beds may improve services, and certainly we know that services within the community make a dramatic impact on the use of hospital beds. The task force report shows that progress is being made by health authorities to improve the level of services.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the question of crisis cards. A number of local psychiatric services have pioneered the system of crisis cards which give essential information about people to contact should a crisis arise in a patient's care. We welcome those initiatives and would like to see them tried more widely. However, we are not convinced at this time that more central guidance would be valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, talked a little about moving people into the community. Our policy is to provide a comprehensive range of services to include in-patient care where appropriate, as well as services in the community. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health launched the Ten Point Plan, which I shall discuss in a moment, she gave an undertaking that no permission for closures of hospitals would be agreed to unless there were better alternatives provided in the community.
While making funding available, the Government are also taking steps to develop the quality of mental health care. We are working closely with the professional organisations, the NHS and other agencies to disseminate good practice and continue setting high standards. We are promoting alliances between health, social services, housing and criminal justice departments. At the centre of that approach is a coherent, sharply focused strategy known as the Ten Point Plan.
The plan includes proposals to strengthen the powers of supervision for patients detained under the Mental Health Act when they leave hospital. The Mental Health Bill referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, returns, as your Lordships will be aware, to this House next month. If it is passed, it will introduce a new power of supervised discharge so that patients who are most at risk comply with the terms of their care plan. I believe that those measures are designed precisely to meet the very sad—indeed, tragic—case of the young man referred to by my noble friend. I believe that his name was Martin Lloyd. It is very much those sort of cases that our new legislation will prevent.
646
As part of the Ten Point Plan we have also issued an improved version of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. New guidance has been given which prevents patients being discharged from hospital inappropriately and promoting easier access to care from different agencies. The supervision registers introduced last year have clearly identified patients with highest priority needs. We are confident that that can help prevent suicides, self-neglect and violence.
The Government have consistently supported the care programme approach and through the Ten Point Plan we have made training for key workers a priority. A national conference was held in March 1994 on the care programme approach, followed by a further three which the Government supported. We are currently discussing with the Open University and others how to take that further by developing training materials for professionals in all aspects of mental illness.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of the difficulties of implementing community care. I believe that the Ten Point Plan goes a long way towards helping us do so successfully. However, we have not stopped there. Much work is continuing, both nationally and locally, as part of The Health of the Nation strategy. We are continuing to issue up-to-date guidance as good practice is identified and developed.
My noble friend Lord Reading is absolutely right to call attention to the area and to the important work of voluntary organisations such as the Matthew Trust. The Government believe that mental health will continue to be a priority for the future as one of the five key areas in The Health of the Nation initiative. We hope that there will be further advances in understanding and further developments in good practice. The Government will continue to listen to patients and to professionals and we will encourage the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to co-ordinate the activities of the voluntary sector. We will also promote and continue to fund high quality services and research.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.5 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("or is studying for less than 21 hours per week").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B. This amendment seeks to confirm the present entitlement; that is, 21 hours of study, and it will remove the provision of 16 hours of guided tuition which the Government wish to impose. It is alleged that the

647
present 21-hour rule is not applied consistently throughout the country. We accept that that is the case. Certainly there have been many complaints about that. However, we do not believe that reducing the provision from 21 hours of study to 16 is the way to deal with that kind of inconsistency. Although this is not an issue which will necessarily require a long debate, it is a fundamental issue and it goes to the heart of the Bill in that the Government's declared intention is to get people in Britain out of unemployment and into work. I do not believe that the Government's wish to reduce the hours of study to 16 will in any way assist that situation. While I accept that there are different points of view as regards whether some people will lose and some people will gain from the provision, those involved in education have said that about 36 per cent. of people will be discouraged from taking courses. Individuals will be discouraged and so will employers.
In the UK there is an increasing problem of long-term unemployment, especially among men. Some 21 per cent. of the unemployed have no qualifications at all and 38 per cent. of the long-term unemployed—over 400,000 of them —have no qualifications. The Bill does nothing to address that problem and yet it is supposed to be a Bill which is trying to encourage unemployed people to get back into work. I would suggest also that the Bill does nothing at all to rectify the skills shortage. In some areas of work there is a real skills shortage. There are not enough people to fill those positions and now it appears that training will be cut back.
A wide range of reports from within the UK and from outside —and indeed the Government's own statistics on this are perfectly clear—show that the qualifications level in this country is low. Where there are low qualifications, there is high unemployment. People are increasingly vulnerable to unemployment. The CBI report Tackling Long-Term Unemployment, the work done by the TUC, the universities, the Institute of Personnel Management and indeed other organisations and the OECD report or the ILO report all show that those countries which invest most in education and training have populations with better employment prospects. That is at the core of this Bill. We do not understand why the Government wish to move away from that and have at the same time, in parallel, cut back considerably on the training places available.
Statements by the Minister in another place give little comfort in this area. People will be forced out of education and into low-paid jobs because they will be required to take any job no matter what that job pays. Low pay is a substantial problem in Britain. Some 328,000 people earn less than £1.50 an hour and over one million earn less than £2.50 an hour. The only way we will begin to rectify that problem is by encouraging more people to take better training and be better educated. In that way they will have some chance of getting back into the work market and having better job security. It would be better investment in the individual, it would be better for the taxpayer and it would certainly be better for the employers in Britain to have a workforce which is skilled.
With that philosophical approach, underpinned by a Bill which will make that a reality, I believe we will begin to make some progress. This Bill does not do that. It is regarded by people who are unemployed as mean and penny-pinching. It is a Bill which neither gives them encouragement nor practical help to get themselves off the unemployment list and back to work. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: So much unease has been expressed about this particular provision in the Bill that I wonder whether the Government consulted the training providers about the possible effects of what they propose. If they did, what was the result? Are they able to tell us?
I am very impressed by the evidence from the Association for Colleges which supports the view that helping unemployed adults to study benefits both them and society as a whole. By gaining new skills and refreshing old ones, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the unemployed can be helped back into the job market. I have heard spokesmen from the Government Front Bench say that so often that I wonder whether they have thought through the consequences of what they suggest with this provision.
The Association for Colleges says that the changes will introduce new inconsistencies and confusion and lead to thousands of adults being forced to give up their study, thereby undermining their attempts to return to the workforce.
I have also heard from the British Retail Consortium, which normally supports most of the Government's actions. It is very concerned about the effect that this provision will have, particularly on part-time workers. In a letter to me the consortium says:
"Recent discussions with TECs have indicated that there are already insufficient training for work weeks for those currently seeking training opportunities and those weeks which are available are being offered to those looking for full-time work. Consequently, we believe those seeking part-time work who require training could already be experiencing difficulties… There is therefore a real concern that if TECs have less hours to offer they will be less inclined to part fund part-time courses and the NRTC's entitlement to apply for EU funding for training will be lost without equal funding from TECs, thereby reducing opportunities to offer training for retail skills to those who seek part-time employment within the industry".
The Committee will appreciate that a vast number of jobs in retailing are part-time. Without those part-time jobs, for which a considerable degree of skill is needed in some cases, the industry would be in difficulty.
The BRC makes a second point. Retailers are seeking clarity as regards the number of hours which the unemployed will have actively to seek work in order to qualify for the JSA, and would be grateful for assurances that if those people who want part-time work sign up for part-time training courses of 16 hours a week they will still be eligible for JSA.
I very much support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts on the issue.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the Ministers for their courtesy in giving us a meeting on this issue and for listening very sympathetically and helpfully to what we had to say.
There is a substantial measure of common ground between us. We are agreed that we welcome the unemployed undertaking study in order to increase their qualifications. I think that we agree that the issue of benefit for full-time students, whatever we think about it, is not involved in this Bill or this amendment. I think that we agree that there is difficulty in working out how a distinction should be made between some students who are eligible and some who are not.
I understand that the Government have had difficulties with the old 21-hour rule. They will have at least equal difficulties with the new 16-hour rule. In my view, particularly since the modularisation of courses, a distinction by hours is not viable for the reason, among others, that it does not work equitably between subjects.
There is also a cultural problem of interface between the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and the institutions. If there was any room for concession along that cultural interface that would be very welcome indeed.
Meanwhile, I understand that this is a point which does not require primary legislation. For all I have said, I perfectly understand that flexibility has advantages as well as disadvantages. This is a matter which does not have to be settled finally now, and I ask the Minister whether he can undertake that if between us, perhaps in consultation with the Association for Colleges, we could find a better way of making a distinction he would be prepared to listen and see whether we could do anything about it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps, with the indulgence of the Committee, I may say a few words harking back to what we discussed before the dinner break, when I answered a number of interventions which came fairly thick and fast from the other side of the Chamber, to make sure that I got one point exactly right.
That point concerned the clarification of arrangements for hardship payments for disabled people who fail the availability requirement for JSA. As I explained, where claimants fail the availability test but fall into a vulnerable group they may have access to hardship payments. However, if a person does not fall into a vulnerable group he can have access to hardship payments only if the adjudication decision takes longer than two weeks. He can then receive payments while awaiting that decision. However, once an adverse decision has been reached, a claimant who is not in a vulnerable group will not have access to payments and must make himself available for work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There may not be very much between us if the Minister were able to remove the two-week provision for those people who, whatever the definition of vulnerability, move from incapacity benefit or have points which nonetheless fail to take them to the incapacity benefit level. Perhaps the definition of vulnerability could be expanded to include
650
such people. That would meet the issue. Alternatively, the two-week rule would not apply to the group of people with points which are insufficient to qualify for incapacity benefit, irrespective of their family circumstances, such as having dependent children. If the Minister could move either way, that would meet a very worrying concern of some very vulnerable people who might not fit into tidy categories of what constitutes vulnerability. It would not be costly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to study what the noble Baroness suggested and give some consideration to the alternative options that she suggested.
To return to the amendments in front of us, we recognise that undertaking courses of study can help unemployed people improve their employability and get back to work more quickly. That is why the Government are spending £574 million this year to provide 225,000 opportunities for training for work in England alone. We also continue to provide for people to study part-time while claiming JSA. Our proposals are designed to allow the same number of people to study part time while receiving JSA (about 80,000) as do so under the current rules, and to ensure that the rules can be administered fairly and consistently. I believe that it would set an unacceptable precedent to treat people as actively seeking work just because they were studying part time. Unemployed people are able to study only if they remain available for and are actively seeking work. It is not, and never has been, the purpose of unemployment benefit to support those whose first intention it is to study. While I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may not entirely agree with that proposition, he is at least prepared to accept that there is no point in reopening it so far as concerns the present argument.
We believe that it is entirely reasonable to expect someone who is claiming benefits as an unemployed person to seek a job actively. It is important that he maintains contact with the labour market. This will ensure that he is aware of any opportunities that are available. These principles apply to claimants studying part time as they do to others.
Perhaps I may set out the Government's proposals and look at the amendments in that light. In the further education sector, the definition of part time courses which we have used to date is no longer workable. The Further Education Funding Council now uses the concept of the guided learning hour. We have proposed a limit of 16 guided learning hours per week. A limit of 21 guided learning hours per week will mean a considerable increase in the number of people who are able to claim JSA, and of course in expenditure. We estimate that some 6,000 more people will be in a position to claim. If other benefits were in line with that, the additional cost would be some £40 million per year. The new rules that we are bringing in will produce a greater degree of consistency and clarity than is possible under the current rules.
Commenting on this, the Further Education Funding Council, as reported in The Times Higher Education Supplement of 17th February, said that 16 guided

651
learning hours were broadly equivalent to the 21 hours of supervised study that currently applied. The point I have made is that the old system and the system that we have proposed will cater for approximately the same number—80,000. The report went on to say that the council thought the changes would probably be cost-neutral and would align the benefits system to the way courses are now delivered. They said:
"It clarifies the position for all students and will bring consistency to the decisions of local benefit offices."
There appears to be a misunderstanding about the term guided learning hours. This terminology is used by the Further Education Funding Council for England as a basis for funding colleges for the courses they offer. A similar definition is used by the FEFC for Wales. The term has no meaning in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In England and Wales the definition of a guided learning hour will be that used by the FEFC. The arrangements for Scotland will be similar, but will need to reflect the education arrangements there. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. It is not practical or sensible to use the same definition across the whole of the United Kingdom. This would create difficulties in applying the rules consistently and could lead to similar anomalies to those experienced under the present system.
There are one or two other amendments in this group. While I do not believe that anybody has spoken to them, I think it is only fair that I say one or two words about them. I refer to Amendment No. 61B. I understand the spirit of this amendment. It is important that guidance to staff on how to apply the jobseeking conditions, and indeed the other conditions for benefit, should be made available to the public so that claimants and advice bodies can fully understand their rights and responsibilities under JSA. That is an important part of open government. I can give an assurance that this amendment is unnecessary. The guide of the chief adjudication officer to adjudication officers in the performance of their functions is a document published by HMSO and available in libraries. The majority of ES internal guides on unemployment benefit and advice and services to jobseekers are also available to whoever wishes to consult them. The same approach is followed in the Benefits Agency. We intend to continue these open arrangements for JSA.
I turn to Amendment No. 73A. Your Lordships have heard me say that the Government keep all of their programmes and policies under review as a matter of course. That is prudent management. Therefore, I suggest that this particular amendment is unnecessary. Public expenditure and public policy must always be monitored to ensure that resources are focused where they are needed and that we get value for money.
The education sector is undergoing rapid development at present. There is rather a deficiency of detailed information about study while on benefit, and the advantages it may bring. It is therefore particularly important that we keep the rules in this area under close review. That we shall do. We shall make any particular results of such work available in the normal way. The changes to the rules on part-time study are intended to ensure that the rules can be applied consistently, and they have been carefully defined to ensure that the same
652
number of unemployed people will be able to study as do so currently. The current regulations rely on education establishments defining their courses as either part- or full-time. This is no longer workable in the further education sector. The Further Education Funding Council funds courses depending on the number of guided learning hours students spend studying each week. That is why we have made changes to the rules for FEFC-funded courses. There will be no change for higher education and other sectors where the part-time definition is used.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Nicol: Before my noble friend rises to speak, perhaps the Minister will answer my question about the degree of consultation that occurred before the changes were made. There appears to be a great deal of unease among training providers. It would be helpful to know whether they were consulted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot give an immediate answer regarding the people who were consulted. One of the problems is that someone who feels that he ought to have been consulted and has not been is aggrieved. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that there has been consultation. The Further Education Funding Council has indicated that it feels that what we have arrived at will bring clarity for all students and is roughly the same as the previous position.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should like to press him a little further on a number of problem areas. These matters arose at a meeting with the Minister the other day when he kindly said that he would look at these issues. Referring to those in work at the moment, a considerable number accept that they have to upgrade their skills. Many are in part-time education and also hold down jobs. That is to be encouraged and welcomed. When those people are made redundant—an example is the 150 redundancies declared today at the Financial Times—they register for work and find that if a job is offered they cannot refuse it on the grounds of the education course. They have to decide whether to give up the course or take any job that may be offered. That may be a false economy, particularly if the course will give them added skills so that they may get better forms of work. They will lose that investment in time and their commitment to it. That is a real anomaly faced by people in work today. I do not believe that the Bill deals with that situation.
Another anomaly arises where somebody says he wishes to go on a course and is prepared to pay for it. The money for that course may come from savings. It is quite often the case that a family member who has been unemployed for some time suddenly realises that the only way to get out of that situation is to gain added skills. He may go on a course. At the meeting that we had the example of the heavy goods vehicle licence course was referred to. One has to pay to get training to obtain a heavy goods vehicle licence. There is a whole range of other skills that can be acquired and paid for. Yet, if more than £100 is paid, the current interpretation

653
placed upon it is that because of that commitment one is not available for work. That is a double-whammy in that sense. It penalises someone. It is a false economy for the taxpayer. It is a penalty on the individual who is prepared to give up his time and put his nose to the grindstone to try to obtain further skills so that he does not remain on the unemployed register.
I must press the Minister on those two points. Is he prepared to consider whether it is possible to deal with those kinds of anomalies, which are not individual examples but anomalies which genuinely arise and in considerable number in some areas?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I explained, it is difficult to deal with individual cases without knowing all the aspects of the case. If an officer's view on a matter appeared to be wholly unreasonable, the claimant has the opportunity to appeal to another adjudication officer and up through the system. I should have thought that if it were wholly unreasonable, the first adjudication officer would see that. So I find it quite difficult to give cast-iron guarantees about hypothetical cases.
I have discussed the matter with officials since the noble Baroness and others came to see me. We find it difficult to create a case and make a decision about how an officer might deal with it. I find it a little hard to believe, if the HGV licence in question would clearly help that person get a job and do it reasonably quickly—I do not suppose that such courses are terribly long, although they may be very concentrated—that an employment officer would insist on desertion with a week or two to go when, on completion of the course, there was every prospect of a job.
It is not necessarily the case that every course will leave you in a far better position to get a job. There must be circumstances in which, frankly, taking the job on offer on that day or week gives a much better prospect of obtaining employment than continuing with the course to its end. The course may not in fact increase your chances so very much when it comes to jobs. It is difficult to say.
I should like to be more helpful, but these matters are difficult. One of the reasons why there are adjudication officers' guidance and other things all around the country is to enable these situations to be dealt with fairly. Frankly, I should be living in a totally unreal world if I were to pretend that occasionally mistakes are not made on either side of the divide. Sometimes people have remained in benefit who did not deserve to do so; at other times people may have fallen out who, equally, did not deserve to do so. We all know that, in any system which has to deal with the individual cases of people, those things are always likely to happen in a very small number of cases.
I should like to think that the officers of the employment agencies, with the background and all the guidance that they have, would take a realistic and fair view of the course continuing compared with the job offer. There is always the possibility and much more
654
than the possibility—the prospect—that a person can redesign the time of attendance at a course in order to work and go to the course. The great majority of people in further education already do both. That is one of the strengths of the FE part of our system. It allows people to study and work at the same time. I believe that, even if somebody had to take up a job but wanted to keep on studying, there is every prospect that he would be able to, do so, just as some of the people beside whom he is working will equally be studying at the same time as they are working.
Earl Russell: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say a few words. I believe that there are slightly greater problems here than the Minister suggests. For example, I know of a case in which someone was required to sign on 15 times a week. The problem here is that most people can only get hold of one idea at a time. Perhaps the Minister will remember the time when 16 and 17 year-olds were first disentitled from benefit. It used to be very difficult to get people to tell them that the right to severe hardship payments existed. In fact, in some cases they were told directly that they did not exist. That is because people had got hold of the idea that 16 and 17 year-olds were disentitled and that idea blotted out everything else.
I rather feel that what is happening here is that people have the idea that students are disentitled and do not think beyond that to all the complexities of which of them is disentitled and which not. A little more guidance in this area might possibly he useful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am very clear in my own mind that if someone is genuinely undertaking up to 16 hours' guided learning, which it is perfectly legitimate for them to do, it would be unreasonable for an officer to ask him to come 15 times, especially if those times coincided with his study times. That would be unreasonable. I shall discuss the matter with officials to see whether somebody would, indeed, be able to do that. Of course, they may have considerable suspicion that there was a lot more to "study" than study, but that of course is another matter.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I do not accept the statements made by the Minister. With all due respect to him, it betrays a lack of knowledge of what is going on in the real world. I do not mean that in any offensive way. The fact is that working patterns have changed considerably. To say that someone could go in to work and be on a course at the same time is not necessarily the case. I chose those 150 workers from the Financial Times because they are a very good example of that. Their normal pattern is to work at night time. If unemployed, they would no doubt go to the unemployment office and sign on. They could well be offered a job with work during the day. That is my point. Someone could be a half or two-thirds of the way through a course and have to give it up because the work that may be available—if there is any available—does not fit into the course time. It is a reality.
When the Bill was discussed in the other place, the government Minister was absolutely clear in her statement to that Chamber. She spoke of:
"part-time courses provided that they"—

655
"they" being the unemployed persons—
"remain available for, and actively seeking, employment"—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/95; col. 133]
I do not know many employers who would interview an unemployed person and take him into employment if he said, "By the way, I go to college two half-days or two days a week." In today's job market, the reality is that the employer would say, "Good luck to you, but that's not good enough to me. I need someone who can be here for the hours that I want him. I do not have any commitment to you as an individual."
The Minister, when discussing this matter in the other place, went on to speak of:
"the increasing flexibility of modern courses, to combine work and study. But it will continue to be the case that claimants may not turn down or refuse to apply for a vacancy notified to them merely because it conflicts with their course of study".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/95; col. 134.]
For instance, does the heavy goods vehicle driver give up the course? Does the print worker who has paid for a course in modern technology for transferable skills give up the course and become unemployed, staying on the job register in a contracting market? Does the young woman who has paid fees to attend a course to learn other skills to make sure that she can stay in work or get new work, give up the course? I do not press the Minister through any flight of fancy. These are the realities of the job market today.
I ask the Minister if he is prepared to consider whether anything could be done to ease that situation at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that I can go any further. There may be a fairly deep chasm between us on this matter. I take the view and have expressed it on a number of occasions that everybody on JSA is there because he is available for work and actively seeking it. The 16-hours' guided learning, as the 21-hour rule was, is a concession to encourage and help those people who wish to study. But I do not believe that we can set aside the principal reason why someone is on JSA —namely, that he is looking for a job—and if a job comes up, he should take that job. I do not think that we should set that aside in order to allow those people in all cases to continue to study. That, I am afraid, goes very close to actually having a special group that are no longer expected to be available or actively seeking work. I think that gets us into much more difficult territory, in which I accept there is a deep division of opinion between the two sides of the Committee.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: The Minister is right: there is a major division of opinion, and whereas the Jobseekers Bill is there for people available for work, it also has provision within it for exclusions for individual categories. It is one of those categories I am talking about this evening. I hear what the Minister says and I will obviously read his exact words in Hansard. I will not press this amendment at the moment, but I shall wish to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The contribution-based conditions]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("two complete years") and insert ("complete year").
The noble Lord said: This is the most reasonable of all the amendments put forward from this side of the Committee. Simple equity demands that this amendment be accepted. There are in fact three amendments which are linked: Nos. 11, 12 and 14. The substance of what I am suggesting is that because the benefit period has been cut in half the contribution period should be cut in half. Instead of having two complete years, we should have one complete year —the last complete year—and as long as the applicant for benefit has one year's contributions he gets six months' benefit. As I say, I shall find it hard to understand how on earth the Government could resist this amendment, but of course I hope they will not resist it.
It must be stressed that a number of things are happening as a result of what the Government are intending to do. I would ask your Lordships to remember what is happening. As a result of halving the period in which the unemployed person gets unemployment benefit, for example, a person with a working partner loses £1,200 as a result of the Government's proposals and a person with a non-working partner and savings of £8,000 will lose £2,700. That is the effect of cutting the benefit period in half. We know that since 1979 there has been a strong and steady reduction in the value of the benefit. In 1979 the benefit was worth 31 per cent. of average earnings, and now it is worth 14 per cent. of average earnings. So, even if the Government have not decided to cut benefit in half, the value of the benefit is reducing steadily and no doubt if the Government were to stay in office for a lengthy period it would be reduced still further.
However, naturally enough, the contribution rate continues to rise, It has just been increased from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent., and so we have a consistent reduction in the value of the benefit and an increase in the contribution rate required to produce that benefit. Now we have a sudden cutting in half of the benefit period and people are being told that for the succeeding six months, or whatever, they must go on to a means-tested benefit. I will not go through all the consequences of that. This matter has been dealt with in other amendments by other people at other times. The question is: how can it be defended that the period of contribution should not be reduced when the period of benefit has been reduced? That is the argument behind this amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, certainly started off in a very optimistic state of mind, and I hope I shall not disappoint him too much. This is one of a series of amendments which is really moving towards the principal amendment which, I do not doubt, the Opposition wish to move regarding the reduction of the period for unemployment benefit from a year to six months. The reality of the job market is that today something like two-thirds of people looking for work find a job well within six months, and indeed many people, because of their family situation, are eligible for income support at present rather than unemployment benefit, because in fact unemployment benefit does not give them as much as income support would give them in their particular family situation.
The noble Lord made the point I expected—I thought it might come a little later—that if you have reduced the period from 12 months to six months then you ought in some way to reduce some other part of the equation, so to speak. But of course national insurance contributions pay for a great deal more than just unemployment benefit, or in the future for JSA. They pay, for example, for pensions and a very significant part of the benefit system. I do not myself believe that you can trade off one benefit against a contribution without actually looking at the total amount that we all pay for the potential benefits that we get in return for paying our national insurance contributions.
It is not an assurance: people do not necessarily get out of it what they put into it. Probably all that many people get out of it is their retirement pension, and in some ways they are fortunate. Those who are perhaps less fortunate become ill or unemployed and they have to fall back on the benefits that are there under the national insurance system. But there is not a direct link between the contributions paid and the rate or length of entitlement to benefit. It is not a personal insurance scheme. Even the people who become unemployed and find that the benefit is only for six months and not for a year will perhaps in the fullness of time be claiming the not insignificant benefits that arise from old age pensions, retirement pensions and the like.
So while I think it is a nice argument that the noble Lord has used, I do not really think it is one that the Committee should take on hoard. We shall probably return to other parts of this debate but I think that Amendment No. 12 is linked with this one and perhaps I could say a word or two about it because it addresses an important point. It would remove the need for contributions to have been paid before a claim for jobseeker's allowance is made. The effect of that would be that a small number of people could simply pay the contributions when they make the claim, and thus satisfy the contribution condition. I think it could be open to abuse in a small number of cases where people pay their own contributions. I did wonder if there was a concern here about people who perhaps found that, although they thought their contributions were being paid—they had certainly been stopped from their wages—in fact that was not the case.
658
I can assure the Committee that that is the concern behind Amendment No. 12. This clause allows contributions to be treated as paid. It protects an employee whose employer has evaded his national insurance responsibilities without the employee's knowledge. This could occur, as I have said, if a person dealing with national insurance contributions is dishonest or if an employer has gone into liquidation and cannot meet his national insurance obligations. In such cases, if there is no negligence on the employee's part he is not penalised and his contributions arc treated as having been paid. I thought I would say that, because Amendment No. 12 could have been directed at that concern. I hope, that although I did not need to say what I said, I have allayed at least one concern, even if I might not perhaps have entirely satisfied the noble Lord's optimistic view at the beginning of his contribution.
Lord McCarthy: I am glad the noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 12; we shall come to that in a moment. I said that I could not imagine what the Minister would say, but I did not imagine that he would say nothing. But that is in fact what he said. I shall not go into it now—it is far too late—but at one stage he said that two-thirds of the unemployed are not long-term unemployed, which means that one-third are. He said that they are better off on means-tested benefits. I do not believe he meant that, but that is what he said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In fact there are circumstances—for example, where there is a spouse and children—when a person may find that he receives more money on income-related benefit than on unemployment benefit. In certain circumstances they are able to do that. Not everybody in the first 12 months currently receives only unemployment benefit. Many receive income support because that is a fairer benefit for their circumstances.
Lord McCarthy: I thought that income support and unemployment benefit were obtainable now. In fact the Government are taking them away. Is that not right? I am sure we can agree that few people will be better off on income support.
The Minister said also that we should not worry about comparability between what people pay in contributions and what they receive in benefits because there is a kind of cross-subsidy. The Government are cutting the benefit in half but the contribution is exactly the same. Nevertheless, they say, "Never mind, you may receive an old-age pension". That appears to be their justification. I do not regard that as an appropriate argument.
The Minister says that there are certain overall benefits to be obtained from this system. We all know what they are. The Government are doing this to reduce expenditure in the hope that they can justify a round of tax cuts. At the end of the day that is what will happen. So in fact there are no benefits for people who will one day receive the old-age pension. It seems perfectly reasonable to us that, if a benefit is cut in half, the contribution should be cut in half or at least reduced.

659
We cannot see the reason for the provision to which Amendment No. 12 relates. We do not believe that the Government think that there really is any case. The Government do not give examples. Where is the circumstance when somebody somehow pays in a sum of money in the last week to pay themselves into a benefit? Why do not the Government give examples? An issue of this sort must be based on the belief that there is observable, clear misuse of the benefit; that there are a range of people who at the last minute come along and pay up their benefit in the last week. If that is so, why do not the Government stipulate two or three weeks or perhaps a month? Why do we have this strange provision that one cannot get out of being disentitled to a benefit by paying the money in during the last week? I do not believe that those circumstances will ever arise. Unless the Government can give me an answer to that question, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("25") and insert:

("(i) in the case of a person aged 25 or over, 25; and

(ii) in the case of a person aged under 25, 20").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. When introducing the last group of amendments my noble friend Lord McCarthy said that they concerned a matter of simple equity. These amendments are even more simply equitable than the previous group and I hope we can convince the Minister of that.
The purpose of the amendments is to adjust the contribution conditions for jobseeker's allowance for the unemployed aged less than 25 to reflect the lower level of benefit that they will receive in return for those contributions. We believe that because they receive less they should pay less. It is a matter of simple equity. I am not sure that the Government fully understand that concept. The Labour Party believes in the ultimate perfectibility of man and will continue to try to convince the Government of that.
We want to ensure that the rules which govern entitlement to jobseeker's allowance are fundamentally fair. Unless the existing rules are reviewed, young people who become unemployed will find themselves, having worked and having paid the same level of contribution as older people, receiving less benefit in return. That is not equitable. The amendment will ensure that the contribution conditions of the jobseeker's allowance for young people reflect the lower rate of benefit to which they are entitled. We know why there is a lower rate of benefit; it is for no other reason than to save money.
Under the jobseeker's allowance it is proposed that unemployed people under the age of 25 will receive a lower rate of benefit which will be paid at the same rate for this age group as income support. Thus, at the 1995–96 rates, an unemployed 24 year-old will receive
660
£36.85 per week in jobseeker's allowance as opposed to £46.45 for a 25 year-old —a difference of 20 per cent. or a £520 25th birthday present.
The Government accept the general principle of paying less benefit to unemployed people under the age of 25. All the evidence we see from the CAP and elsewhere indicates that their cost of living—and this is a matter of pure common sense—is no lower than for those aged over 25 and the lower rate of benefit will cause severe hardship. It will make it much more difficult for those people to seek work. The CAP provided us with examples. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by going through them, but there are extremely worrying cases.
While the rate of the jobseeker's allowance for the under-25s will be significantly reduced, the amount that they pay in national insurance contributions remains unchanged. It means that young people will be paying more than those aged over 25 relative to what they receive in return. The amendments seek to reduce the contributory conditions for under 25 year-olds and the proposed reduction to correct the imbalance is 20 per cent.
On the broader issue of allowances for people under 25, the Government may justify the lower rates of benefit for that age group on the basis that they do not have the same earnings expectations and commitments as those who are older —that is what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said at Second Reading. However, we all know that a young person living independently has the same needs as somebody who is older. A person's 25th birthday does not alter the level of expenditure. Bills for food, electricity, gas and water are no higher for somebody aged 26. The lower wage levels do not justify a rate of benefit which is below survival level.
The Government may argue also that there has never been a direct relationship between what people pay in national insurance contributions and what they receive in benefits. That will not surprise us; the Bill is all about removing by statute the rights to benefit which people thought they were paying for while they were working. Unless the contribution rules which govern the entitlement to JSA are reviewed, young people who have worked or paid at the same level of contribution as older people—who have paid the same amount into the system—will in fact receive a lower rate out of the system if they become unemployed. The amendment seeks to reflect the lower rate of benefit by making their contributions more equitable.
Unless the Minister, when he replies, can explain the rationale for the reduction for those under 25, we can only conclude—I think we know the answer already—that the issue is about saving money and has nothing to do with the real needs of individuals who find themselves unemployed. The amendments seek to reduce the contributory conditions for the under 25 year-olds under the JSA to make them proportionate to the lower rate of benefit which that group will receive. The amount of contribution with which the person will have been credited will be reduced. The amendment proposes a reduction of 20 per cent. to reflect the lower rate. The figures justify that in terms of return for the contributions which have been paid. It is a matter of simple equity. Those two words have not convinced the

661
Government so far, but I hope that in this case, where the argument is so strong, the Government will feel minded to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, his amendments would reduce the amount of national insurance contributions someone aged under 25 will have had to have paid, or been credited with, in order to receive a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance. Our proposals to pay lower rates of benefit to young people are not a breach of the contributory principle: the national insurance scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme. People are not paying in specifically to fund their own benefit, and there is no direct relationship between the contributions paid by an individual and his personal level of benefit. It is an established principle that Parliament can alter rules of individual benefits and adapt them to meet current needs.
JSA is about bringing together two benefits—unemployment benefit and income support. It is a well established feature of income support that young single people receive a lower rate of benefit. Under JSA we will be adopting the same treatment for all unemployed young people.
The lower benefit rates recognise the fact that younger people generally have lower earnings expectations and commitments. The average earnings for the 18-to-24 age group are less than two-thirds of the average for all adults. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that those who are not living at home and are on their own—many in this group are still living at home—are eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit. Young people who have families can claim income-based JSA and get the same rate of benefit as any other family in the same income circumstances. There are ways in which young people in such circumstances can receive benefit at the same level as those aged over 25 years. If they are in circumstances where they are eligible for HB and CTB, they get those benefits without any reduction.
The main point I wish to make is that in the job market the average earnings for those aged between 18 and 24 are less than two-thirds of average adult earnings. I believe that that is a sensible reflection of the rules of the current income support system and more adequately reflects the reality of the job market in which young people are working or are trying to find jobs.
Lord Carter: There are two points on which I can agree with the Minister. It is clear that the Government can alter the rules, and they are doing that with this Bill in the way in which they have reduced the period of time from 12 months to six months before JSA becomes applicable. As we know, this rule is designed, as the Minister said, to meet the current needs, and those are the needs of the Government to fund tax cuts. I can see that I shall be unable to change the Minister's mind. We may wish to come back to this matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 33.
The noble Baroness said: We want to know why there is a different definition of the benefit year than in the usual social security benefit legislation. We worry that them may be some malign intention in terms of needing to build up contribution records. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I too would like to ask one or two questions about this matter. This issue looks to me suspiciously like a Henry VIII clause. It creates a power to alter by regulation something which is in primary legislation. I understand that it follows Section 21 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It has the same power in that legislation because it states:
"'Benefit year' may by regulations be made to mean such other period (whether or not a period of 12 months) as may be specified in regulations".
It sounds to me like a Henry VIII clause. Clearly, it has been approved by Parliament in the past, so one presumes that there must have been a reason for it. Can the Minister tell me, first, why he needs this power and, secondly, why it was necessary to repeat it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly identifies Section 21(6) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as having similar wording. I can take him further back and suggest that the consolidation Act of 1975 also has the same wording in it. Therefore, the wording has been in legislation for quite a long time.
The purpose of the whole clause is to set out the contribution conditions that the claimant must satisfy. There are some complicated terms in it such as the "relevant tax year" and the "benefit year". It is the latter that we are talking about. To get us into the feel of it, the relevant tax years are the two complete tax years which end on 5th April before the benefit year in which the jobseeking period begins. The benefit year is a calendar year starting on the first Sunday in January.
We intend that the "benefit year" should have the same meaning for the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance as it has currently for unemployment benefit—in other words, the calendar year starting on the first Sunday in January. The subsection would allow for the term to be redefined in regulations if that is ever thought necessary in the future. That would be important if the definition of "benefit year" were changed for the purposes of other contributory benefits.
Having this power avoids the need for primary legislation to achieve what would perhaps be a simple technical change of an alignment nature. I can assure the Committee that the provision has been on the statute book for many years and that neither governments of the Right nor the Left have used it in any devious ways: in fact, I do not think that they have used it at all. However, I believe it is sensible to have this means of changing the definition if ever it becomes necessary to align it with changes that have been made elsewhere in the benefit system for other reasons.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With that reply from the Minister I would hate to break a long hallowed and

663
well-established tradition. I shall clearly want to read what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 37, after ("period") insert ("to include any period of incapacity for work, itself not interrupted by a period of more than twelve weeks").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the linking period of up to 12 weeks for someone who experiences periods of incapacity and is receiving JSA. We know that it is not uncommon for people to have periods of unemployment and periods when they are incapable of work. Indeed, according to DSS research on invalidity benefit, almost one in five people on that benefit have spent some time signing on in the previous two years.
Both unemployment and invalidity benefits could link together to form one period of interruption of employment known as PIE. That means that someone whose invalidity benefit had been withdrawn could sign on as unemployed. If they subsequently fell ill, they could go straight back onto invalidity benefit without having to re-qualify for sickness benefit.
PIEs have also been important for people re-qualifying for invalidity benefit, as it is the first day of PIE which determines the rate of allowance. We know that the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act, with which a number of us were involved, replaced PIEs with periods of incapacity for work (PIWs). I cannot think of a convenient acronym for PIWs which does not sound rude. Therefore, I shall have to say "PIW" each time. PIWs change the relevant contribution years for incapacity benefit. In the future, it could be more important for people to link PIWs as it will take 52 weeks to requalify for the higher rate of incapacity benefit.
We know that the Bill removes the reference to the specific period of eight weeks which was used before, and instead refers to a "prescribed period". We feel that there are sound reasons to have a longer linking period between PIWs so that people who are trying out work do not lose out. There, is already a precedent in the linking rule of two years to enable people claiming the disability working allowance to requalify for their previous levels of invalidity benefit.
The DSS Research Report No. 19, which has been referred to in connection with other amendments, was a survey of invalidity benefit recipients. It showed an increase in the invalidity benefit caseload as a result of people spending longer on that benefit, rather than because of an increase in the number who are claiming for the first time. Over three-quarters of long-term IVB recipients surveyed no longer saw themselves as attached to the labour market in the sense of looking for work, planning to look for work or thinking that they could look for work.
The amendment is directed at long-term recipients of benefit and will positively encourage individuals to try out employment and to move off benefit altogether. We know that Mr. Lilley stated on 24th January 1994 that the Government want to help people back to work,
664
adding that many people who receive incapacity benefit would prefer to work. We can all agree with that. We want the process to work more easily.
I believe that in Standing Committee in the other place the Minister indicated that he would look at the whole question of linking rules in the longer term. He observed that the amendment that was moved there—it was similar to this—would almost certainly have resulted in some savings. I should have thought that that would be attractive to the Government. Indeed, we have had some easement of the linking rules for specific groups of claimants. We know that the period will increase from eight weeks to 12 for people on training courses. However, a similar concession was not given with regard to incapacity benefit, which means that thousands of sick and disabled people will be caught permanently in the benefits trap.
The amendment would encourage people to consider employment and would enable them to attempt it in either the short or longer term. It would appear to be a no-cost amendment but could, in fact, produce considerable savings by enabling individuals to come off benefit and become economically active once more. I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that it is a good idea, but administratively difficult, which is what the DSS usually says when it cannot think of another answer. I hope that the Minister will look at it constructively. If the amendment is not drafted correctly, we are willing to withdraw it and bring it back. Indeed, the Government might like to draft their own amendment. I believe that there is strength in the argument behind this amendment which, as I have said, could result in some savings for the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may be surprised to hear that in the dictionary of the Department of Social Security, the words, "Yes, that isn't a bad idea" also occur. Of course, there is a warning that they should not be used too often, but in this case I think that I can use them.
The amendment seeks to ensure that periods of incapacity benefit, where they are not separated by more than 12 weeks, will be included in the linking provisions for jobseeker's allowance. As my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State announced in another place—in Committee, I think—the linking provisions for jobseeker's allowance will be set out in regulations. Nevertheless, the Government have decided that periods of incapacity benefit will be included in those provisions.
We have further agreed that the linking period of jobseeker's allowance will be 12 weeks. Thus, periods of incapacity benefit separated by up to 12 weeks will link for the purposes of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.
We propose to achieve that effect in regulations. At the risk of tempting the noble Lord to fall into a severe trap, if he will accept that we shall do that by regulations, I am sure that he will be able to reject—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: —to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Freud says that one never makes mistakes!
Lord Carter: We now know what happens to Ministers and officials when they have served in the DSS for a period of time—their unbridled and uncontrolled enthusiasm for amendments is converted into, "Yes, that doesn't seem too bad an idea". I am extremely grateful to the Minister who has seen the sense of the argument. Obviously, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The income-based conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): If Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the hours that a partner of someone on means-tested JSA may work. The aim of the amendment is to abolish the rule whereby a partner's hours of work rather than his or her level of wages can disqualify a couple from receiving means-tested JSA. Why is that necessary? Under income support rules, one partner loses entitlement to income support, pound for pound, when the other partner is in work. We will return to debate the folly of that on Amendment No. 35. However at least it is an income-based test: his part-time earnings, if he has any; her earnings, if she has any; and the putative income from any savings, are all taken into account in determining the level of income support. It is a test of need based on income. As I say, we may object to it but at least it is a clear and consistent rule.
Why then do we have another test based on hours worked? Admittedly most women—we will assume for this purpose that it is a woman—working 24 hours or more are likely to earn enough to float both of them off income support, and, if they have children, on to family credit. What if they do not? We are saying that if someone works 24 hours or more and does not have children, the couple will retain an income which amounts to less than income support.
With the abolition of the wages councils, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, wages have been forced down. We now have plenty of reports of retail work—hairdressing and the like—which pays less than £2 an hour. Nearly 1.25 million people are currently earning less than £2.50 an hour. If someone works 25 hours for £2.50 an hour, he or she earns £62.50. From that they pay national insurance. That is less than the £73 a week regarded as the poverty line for a couple and which would incidentally passport them on to housing and council tax benefit. Yet, by working for more than 24
666
hours a week, even though that person may be earning less than he or she would receive on income support, the partner loses entitlement to income support. It is calculated that some 60,000 couples with one partner in work for more than 24 hours may have an income lower than income support.
That is perverse as well as being difficult for those families. Clearly if the couple have children the problem tends to be resolved by family credit, which tops up an in-work benefit, but if they do not have children, and if they are not in a piloting area—we have some concerns about that—they will have to live on an income below income support. In practice the woman will leave work so that the couple may have an enhanced standard of living based fully on benefits. We get back into the disincentive trap about which we were talking earlier. Because, once the woman has lost her work, the family has moved from being work-rich to work-poor; they become locked on to benefit; they fall out of touch with the world of work, and it costs us all as taxpayers infinitely more to pick up their total benefit bill. It is a vicious downwards spiral when it can so easily be rectified by merely scrapping the hours rule. The income test should be enough. We do not need an hours test as well.
The Government recognise the problem by saying that they may extend family credit to families without children; in other words, couples. We have real doubts about that, because family credit was designed as a benefit whereby the taxpayer contributed to the support of children in low-wage families. If there are no children it becomes a benefit which merely encourages the employer to pay whatever wages he likes, knowing that they will be topped up by the taxpayer through an in-work benefit. I should have thought that we would have wanted to avoid that situation if possible.
Why not instead let people work the hours that are appropriate and then apply the income rule alone and not the hours rule? That would save us all money. It would keep the second partner in work and give both partners the opportunity to return to the world of work, something we surely want. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that I propose to deal separately with Amendments Nos. 21 and 181, which were originally grouped with this amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She has made out a strong case with regard to the effect on the one member of a couple who is likely to hold a part-time job of 24 hours or less. Incidentally in many cases that can now be a man, because one of the interesting facts which is emerging from the recent employment statistics is the rise of short-time work among men as well as women. Therefore it could be the man who might have to abandon his job or live on a lower income than he would receive from benefit. As I understand it, that has never been part of the Government's policy. Indeed the reverse has consistently been their policy: that people should be persuaded to work and not to live on benefit.

667
There is another factor which applies also to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. All the subsections of the clause are essentially family-breakers. The way someone can continue receiving income support is by leaving the family of which he or she is part, one of whose members has some kind of income-based support benefit. That cannot be in anyone's interests. When all of us talk a great deal about the importance and strength of families, not least in bad economic circumstances, do we want to make it the case that someone can receive benefit if he or she leaves the family but cannot receive benefit if he or she stays with it? I cannot think that that is what the Government intend, but it is what the face of the Bill appears to say. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to address himself to that point when he answers the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 20 would mean that income-based jobseeker's allowance could still be payable when a claimant's partner is engaged in remunerative work. It would remove a long-standing principle of income-related benefits that couples are treated as a single unit and benefit is payable only if neither is in remunerative work. JSA is a benefit for people looking for work. The removal of the rule would mean that people undertaking substantial amounts of work for low income could still be entitled to the benefit. Those people cannot be classified as unemployed, and other in-work benefits, such as family credit, are available and are more appropriate for the people in those circumstances.
We have also announced plans to pilot a new in-work benefit for single people and childless couples. It will help those without children who cannot qualify for family credit. I am sure that on another day we shall discuss whether or not that benefit is good. However, we recognise the importance of incentives for partners of unemployed people to remain in or to take up small amounts of work. JSA will introduce a number of new measures which will help those whose partners undertake part-time work. We are increasing the remunerative work rule for partners from 16 to 24 hours. We are introducing a new £10 earning disregard for couples. Moreover, a partner's part-time earnings will count towards the build-up of the back-to-work bonus, which can be paid when either the claimant or his partner moves into work.
All those measures will help to address the problem of the working partner and will encourage the working partner to remain in work. The idea that working partners necessarily desert work is not widely observed. As the noble Baroness said in respect of work-rich and work-poor families, there is no doubt—
Earl Russell: I do not believe that my noble friend Lady Williams said that anyone must desert. She said that the rules created an incentive to do so, and that I believe to be correct.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that the noble Earl misheard me. I was talking about deserting the job and was addressing a question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that partners would desert a part-time job in those circumstances. As a result of the undoubted problems of unemployed couples and their
668
disadvantage compared with couples where one party has a part-time job, the attractions of staying in work, in particular in the light of the improvements that we have made, will be considerable. I hope that they will prevent people from making a wrong decision and leave a part-time job because that may appear in the short term to be of benefit. There is a great deal of evidence that staying in work, even part-time work, is a better position from which to develop and to get more work, or for the partner to get work, than deserting the work. I do not believe that any responsible person would take the decision to desert work and place herself and her husband in a worse position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, opened up a wider issue about the treatment of families and couples as opposed to single people. The subject is causing a great deal of anxiety but I do not particularly wish to address myself to it because I do not believe that there are any easy solutions. However, at least one of our European partners does not provide as we do, but pays a couple double the benefit of a single person. We have tried to be more generous to a single person, which leads inevitably to the kind of problem that the noble Baroness suggests. I hope that there exists more moral and social pressures and advantages in staying together and staying married than the possible economic advantage that may lead one to desert a marriage. I fear that marriage break-up, which is all too prevalent, is caused by other deep-seated social reasons and conditions arising from (dare I say?) our more permissive society.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry that the Minister did not take the very simple point that I made. The income support level for a couple is £73 per week and that will passport the couple on to other benefits. It is regarded as a poverty threshold.
Perhaps I may take the example of two couples. In one couple, the woman—and I choose the woman, although I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—is working 21 hours per week for £3 per hour and receives £63 per week. At that point, because the woman is working for fewer than 21 hours per week, the benefits of the couple may be topped up by income support. In other words, there is offsetting and that income is floated up to £73 per week. The woman remains in work and the couple receive other benefits.
In the next-door house, the woman works for 25 hours per week receiving £2.50 per hour, which means that she is also receiving an income of £63 per week. Because of the hours rule, that couple are disqualified from receiving income support and, consequently, their income is not floated up to £73. Therefore, that woman is financially worse off because she is in work and she would be stupid to stay in work.
If the Minister means what he says—and I am sure that he does—that we wish to keep people in work and that part-time work may be a pathway into full-time work, we should do our damnedest to encourage people to stay in part-time work. I am not knocking the additional bonuses and so on to which the Minister has referred. But how can he defend the proposition that one

669
family with a member working for 21 hours a week for £3.00 has its income topped up by income support but the other family with a member working for 25 hours a week for £2.50 per hour does not? As a result, that latter family would be financially better off to pull out of work. Will the Minister explain why we need an hours test over and beyond an income test?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have attempted to explain but clearly I have not succeeded. The point is that the benefit is paid to people who are out of work, unemployed and all the other matters which we discussed today. Remunerative work is just that and does not count for the payment of benefits.
It would be unreasonable if all remunerative work were to knock people out of the system and I should have thought that the increase from 16 to 24 hours was a generous concession to the argument which the noble Baroness makes. I hear that she wants the Government to go further and virtually abandon the rules but she will not be surprised to hear me say that that would involve a cost implication.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But why are the Government testing remunerative work by the hours worked rather than by the amount of remuneration received? The Minister says that there are cost implications but once a person leaves work and becomes unemployed, that costs us all £120 per week.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Dare I say that it is a good deal easier to judge the hours of work than it is to try to compute hours against wages and the wage level earned? It is a simple rule which has existed for some time. We are making an increase from 16 to 24 hours, which is a concession. I doubt whether many people are tempted to follow the route which the noble Baroness says almost everybody is tempted to follow. I believe that this provision is sensible. When the £10 is added and the back-to-work bonus is added, that provides generous assistance to people in the circumstances which we are discussing. That assists them to not only look for work and to stay in part-time employment but it defines the number of hours that a person may work without looking as though he really is working and can no longer be considered an unemployed person.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, makes an extremely good point. I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill my noble friend will read and consider this debate and see whether he cannot make a proposal to answer and ameliorate the situation.
Earl Russell: The Minister's argument that the hours are easier to measure reminds me of the Black Country man who was found looking in the gutter under a lamp post. Somebody asked him, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I dropped half a crown." He was asked, "Did you drop it here?" The reply was, "No, I dropped it over there". He was then asked, "Well why are you looking here?" The reply came back to him, "Because the light is better here". I admit that the Minister has got the better light; but he may not see anything by it.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in the debate. We hope that the Minister will not only have the light but that he will also see the light. When we return to the issue on Report—as I am sure we must because it is a silly anomaly which costs us all money—we ought to be able to resolve the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No 21:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("or unmarried").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 181. Amendment No. 21 is a probing amendment. I should like to learn from my noble friend the Minister what is meant by the phrase "an unmarried couple" in the context of the Bill as set out in Clause 3(1) (e). While I am in favour of marriage, I do not believe that it is necessary for a couple to establish a long and satisfactory relationship by going through a formal ceremony either in a religious or a civil establishment.
However, I believe that the matter needs some explanation from the Government. An "unmarried couple" is not necessarily a stable relationship. How long do the couple have to be in a relationship, living together? What happens if there are regular, possibly even frequent, changes of partners? What is the position with a couple who have got together while abroad and then come to this country where they claim benefit after having been here for only a very short time? What is the position if one of the partners in such an unmarried relationship has a living spouse from whom there is no legal separation? Can someone possibly have more than one partner?
If a married man comes to this country having legally married more than one wife abroad, I believe that he can support both, or more, wives on benefit because they were legally acquired abroad. But would that be the same situation if he entered into a legal, unmarried relationship with more than one woman? Will people who share a home but who do not cohabit automatically be considered as an unmarried couple?
There are all kinds of permutations that one could go into. However, at this hour of the night I shall not do so. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if my noble friend could explain what is meant by "an unmarried couple" in the Bill. On the face of it, it looks as though it is straightforward and very simple. But in the real world we know that some partnerships change, and change quite often with some individuals. I believe that all parties in this country want to establish and protect long-standing relationships. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend is asking for elucidation. Therefore, he does not need me to tell him that his amendment would mean that in the case of unmarried couples the income-based jobseeker's allowance would treat them in quite a different way

671
from married couples. Perhaps I may explain how we tried to venture into what I fully concede is by no means a straightforward area.
As a general rule, unmarried couples who are living together as husband and wife are treated in the same way as a married couple. The principle underlying that rule is that they should not be treated either more or less favourably than married couples. We will be defining "partner" in the JSA regulations. We intend to follow the definition currently used in Income Support, which is tried and tested and which includes both married and unmarried couples and indeed polygamous marriages too. I hope that my noble friend does not ask me about that regulation, because I look forward to reading it tomorrow.
Lord Swinfen: I hope that my noble friend will send me a copy!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend rightly asks me how we decide whether a couple are living together as man and wife. Some of the factors that are taken into account include membership of the same household, stability of the relationships—which I think answers the point about time—financial support, public acknowledgement, sexual relationship, if that information is volunteered, and any children. The criteria do not represent a rigid formula. I am sure most Members of the Committee appreciate that they cannot and the presence or absence of any single factor does not of itself determine the decision.
The basic policy intention is that unmarried couples who are living together as husband and wife should not be treated either more or less favourably than married couples. The emphasis in the treatment of couples is on either the existence of an actual contract of marriage or on an unmarried couple living together as though a contract of marriage existed between them. Our comparison is a general one. We are looking to see whether the unmarried couple are living together on the same kind of basis as they would do when they are married. I hope that, with that rather complicated explanation, my noble friend will at least go away and contemplate what interesting points he might make in his next speech on this subject.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to send me a copy of the regulations because I would like to see that. I feel that this is a rather dangerous and difficult area because one does not want, in my view, to encourage not extra-marital relationships but unmarried relationships that will not be stable over a long period. However, I look forward to reading the regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 23. I now call Amendment No. 22.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 9, leave out from ("of") to the end of line 14 and insert ("16").
The noble Earl said: It is part of the price of having a tight timetable that some amendments come up at inconvenient times on which one nevertheless cannot soft-pedal. This is one such amendment. It attempts to reverse the disentitlement of 16 and 17 year-olds to benefit which was brought into force in 1988. It is the first chance we have had to address this issue in primary legislation since 1990.
I may as well say now, since I think it will simplify the discussion, that I cannot let this go and let the Bill leave this House without taking this issue through the Lobbies. Whether I do so now or whether I do so later depends on whether I think that our timetable will allow a more convenient time in our proceedings later in the Bill's progress. What I will say to the Minister now is that I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment. If he gives me that leave, I shall take it that he has listened to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as regards the timetable. If he has not listened to him and chooses to negative the amendment, then we shall go through the Lobbies.
One of the key points here, I think, is that the Government relied, for disentitling 16 and 17 year-olds, on a justification which this Bill makes obsolete. So the Government can now afford to think again if they wish. I have here the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on the Second Reading of the Social Security Bill 1988, when he introduced the disentitlement. He said:
"the expectations of young people leaving school should never include unemployment. Not only is it demoralising but it usually leads inexorably into the so-called benefit culture. This is a one-way street leading to a dead end and we believe that the entrance to it should be sealed off. We owe it to our youngsters to channel them in the right direction and to steer them away from getting drawn into a benefit culture from which it can be difficult to escape. That is why … we would take steps to withdraw entitlement to benefit from those who deliberately chose to remain unemployed".—[Official Report, 25/1/88; col. 412.]
That is very much the same aim as that which the Minister announced as the aim of this Bill when we discussed Amendment No. 3. If this Bill is adequately designed to achieve that aim—and I presume that the Government must think that it is—then it does not need a separate disentitlement for 16 and 17 year-olds. Every 16 and 17 year-old who would be drawing the jobseeker's allowance would necessarily be undertaking a jobseeker's agreement, actively seeking work, producing diaries of applications and so forth. There is not much room for any benefit culture there.
The Bill removes the reason for the original introduction of the disentitlement. That should create a chance to think through this issue from the beginning.
When he addressed this issue briefly at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, invoked the youth training guarantee as a reason why the disentitlement might be justified. I shall believe that assurance about the youth training guarantee when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can do four things.
First, I shall believe it when he can tell me that there are not 15,849 people waiting for a youth training place. That is quite a lot of people. Secondly, I shall believe it when he can apply to the youth training guarantee the proper Citizen's Charter principle that, if a guarantee is

673
not met, one receives compensation. In other words, if 16 or 17 year-olds register for youth training and do not receive it, they should have an instant entitlement to income support while they are waiting. If the noble Lord said that, he could call it a guarantee.
Thirdly, I shall accept the assurance when the noble Lord is prepared to up-rate the youth training and bridging allowances to restore them at least to their value in 1988 when they were introduced. Those allowances have never been up-rated.
Fourthly, I shall believe his assurance when there is suitable training for those who apply for it. We do not have slavery in this country. There should be at least some very vague suitability in what people are forced to undergo. I shall briefly give three examples, all of which have been mentioned previously in this Committee. A young man who said that he wanted to work with animals was sent to work in an abattoir. If that happened in Brightlingsea it could be conduct liable to provoke a breach of the peace. Another young man who was an asthmatic was required to work as a painter. Finally, in 1991 Blairgowrie in Perthshire had 15 people waiting for youth training and there was one youth training place in the town. Even if they have access to a car, 16 year-olds are not allowed to drive, so they cannot get a place unless it is somewhere they can reach on foot or on public transport.
The object of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has not been achieved by this entitlement. We still have unemployed 16 and 17 year-olds. According to the official careers service figures, 6 per cent. of them are unemployed. That is probably a considerable underestimate. There are still 16 and 17 year-olds living away from home. According to the MORI sample 65 per cent. live away from home because they have been thrown out. In the Centrepoint sample that figure is 86 per cent. Those are not people idly wandering away from home. Those are people whose parents have chucked them out.
Crisis, in its study of London beggars, found two cases which are typical of many. One had been thrown out because she would not agree to her mother's insistence that she should give up the name of her divorced father. I believe that that is something on which she has a right to insist. She was disentitled in 1988 and in 1994 she was still there begging. That is to throw away a life. The other case involved someone who wished to cease to be a Jehovah's Witness and whose parents would not allow him to continue to live at home if he did so. That is an issue of freedom of conscience.
This is the one place where we have some research on what people do if they are totally disentitled to benefit. It is usually crime, selling drugs or prostitution, and prostitution in both senses. I am not particularly squeamish. However, if there is one thing that one finds more disconcerting than being forced into prostitution it is being forced into prostitution against one's sexual orientation. There are 16 and 17 year-old rent boys who sell unprotected sex because it is more profitable. The free market truly takes some very strange forms. I do not need to go into the medical risks of that practice.
According to the figures produced by the careers service among 16 and 17 year-olds there are 6 per cent. unemployed and 6 per cent. unknown. If one looks at the census validation studies, those are probably underestimates. Large numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds simply disappear. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, knows some of the difficulties presented by the figures. I am extremely grateful to him for the help that he has given in trying to get through them. I believe he appreciates that there are likely to be many more lost, stolen and strayed 16 and 17 year-olds out there than are indicated by the official figures. Young people these days are a scarce resource. If we waste them for two years they are liable to stay wasted. That is something that this country cannot afford. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to raise one other issue that is related to a matter about which my noble friend Lord Russell has spoken. I do not know how many Members of the House are associated with the groups that look after the homeless in this country, particularly in the cities, or who have taken the opportunity to talk to some of those who live in cardboard boxes under the National Theatre and elsewhere. If they do, they will come across another very tragic phenomenon, rather similar to some of those of which my noble friend has just spoken. I refer to young girls and boys who run away from home because of sexual abuse within the family. There has been a substantial increase in the reports of sexual violence and abuse in the family, admittedly largely because it is now more acceptable than hitherto to make these matters public. If one speaks to some of the groups that deal with homeless families, and homeless young people in particular, one finds that this phenomenon is not so small that it can be dismissed. A young girl or boy who is subject to sexual abuse will run away from home. It is no good pretending that they can be forced back home by refusing benefit. That may apply to only a few thousand people, but those people deserve our sympathy and mercy. I should like an assurance from the Minister that cases of this kind will be regarded as falling within the reference to special regulations in the Bill at the present time. Although this is not widely spoken of, it is a real issue. To force these young people back to their families will not help them, their families or, for that matter, their futures.
Lord Inglewood: It will come as no surprise to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to hear me say that this amendment seeks to overturn current Government policy, which is to help unemployed young people into training or employment, not to create conditions in which they can sink into benefit dependency. The Government guarantee every young person who wants one a suitable youth training place. That is at the heart of our policy for 16 and 17 year-olds. We are going to spend £669 million on youth training and modem apprenticeships this year in England alone. That is a very significant investment in the future of our young people and in the nation's economy.

675
The guarantee enables young people to focus their efforts on achieving their full potential and develop skills for the nation's economy. Young people should not become dependent on benefit. They need to take every opportunity to get the best possible start in the labour market.
We recognise that there must be exceptions, and we provide for them. First, young people in certain specified vulnerable groups, such as disabled young people, are allowed to claim income support. They will continue to be able to claim income support after the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Secondly, young people in prescribed categories, such as those who have recently left local authority care, will be allowed to claim JSA for a period intended to allow them to overcome their temporary difficulties. That also carries forward existing arrangements. Thirdly, young people who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. Again, that carries forward existing arrangements. We believe that the Government's youth training guarantee backed up by clear sanctions, safeguards and protection represents a fair and balanced package of measures for young people.
In the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, examples were given of extremely distressing circumstances which I do not believe any of us would for a moment condone or support. But we are talking about benefits and the Jobseekers Bill. It seems to me that many of those examples which were described logically follow from the topic that we are discussing this evening—sexual abuse, for example. I do not believe that it is the right way to tackle this particular problem by saying that it has something to do with the benefits system. The problem there is much wider, and that is the way to try to deal with such problems.
I cannot give exact and specific examples of the extent to which, right to the limits, the definition of "vulnerable groups" falls. However, I should be very surprised if it does not include the kind of people about whom we are speaking. I shall write to the noble Baroness and give her full details of exactly where we stand now, because the plan is simply to roll forward the existing provisions to the future.
In his opening remarks the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter earlier this evening. We have listened but I am not in a position to give any kind of commitment or promise at this stage.
Earl Russell: I shall not attempt to answer that reply in detail. Instead, I shall say what Lord Seebohm said in this Chamber the last time that the Government defended the freezing of child benefit: that is an old cracked record; we have heard it many times before; it is worn out; it is time that we had a new one.
I shall tackle only one point—that of the severe hardship payments, which are intended to plug a gap. The problem is that when people have had to leave home, they cannot wait to go through these procedures.
676
They need food now. So they drift off, often into illegal courses of conduct, and they disappear. That is one reason why that provision does not achieve its desired object.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot give an absolute assurance about the timetable at this time. But, as I promised, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment. If the Minister does not negative me, I shall be encouraged. If he does negative me, I shall go through the Lobby and be very interested to see who does and who does not come with me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 24. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, leave out line 19.
The noble Earl said: This is the first of a series of delegated powers amendments. With this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 28. Both amendments concern training. The first one concerns line 19 on page 3 of the Bill:
"a condition that the claimant must register for training".
A condition that the claimant must register for training may be introduced by regulation. The second suggested change concerns line 26 where it says:
"(4) For the purposes of this section 'training' has such meaning as may be prescribed."
We know all about "Educating Rita" but what we are learning about here is training Humpty-Dumpty. This is the first of a series of probing amendments about the use of delegated powers. I gave the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, a list of five questions that I intended to ask about each of the delegated powers. First, why do the Government want the delegated power to do this by regulation? Secondly, what do the Government intend to do with this power? Thirdly, what else could be done with this power, not necessarily by this Government but by some other government with a quite different outlook in the future? Fourthly, what are the extreme things, the worst things, that could be done under this regulation-making power? Fifthly, how could the House give or withhold its consent?
It would not entirely satisfy me if the Government could persuade me that what they intend to do with the delegated power is entirely reasonable. I would find that reassuring but not totally satisfying. The vires to make regulations are like mines that we lay across the legislative landscape and they may explode at some future date in ways that none of us can now foresee, so I would want reassurance that we are not creating the vires to do something which is particularly dangerous.
I might be persuaded to agree to either of these powers individually. What really worries me—I should like to have some reassurance on this—is their effect in conjunction. There are libertarian objections to making training compulsory. Those objections might not be conclusive but if we can make training compulsory and

677
then we can change the meaning of "training" to mean anything we like, goodness knows what could be done with that.
I accept that at present there is no governmental intention to introduce workfare. I have no intention of starting a scare about that, but the vires exist for some future government to introduce workfare if it chose, without any further legislation. If that were to be introduced I think even those who supported it would agree that it deserved the dignity of primary legislation and serious debate.
I have looked at the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I understand that they intend "training" to have the meaning it has in the Employment and Training Act 1973. If they did that it would not worry me. If they wrote it into the Bill it would make me happy. But why do they want to leave to their successors a power to change the meaning of "training" in entirely arbitrary ways? Do the Government really have such great confidence in the Opposition? I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepts that there is no sinister intention behind the Government's present proposals. As explained, our intention is that the definition should incorporate training to be provided for such people under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 and that includes youth training and modern apprenticeships. I hope that that will assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister in the provision.
We wish to be able to retain flexibility in regard to whatever changes may arise in the future in respect of training programmes. We believe that it is appropriate in the circumstances that, if we wish to link JSA for a certain category to training, we should be able to make quite sure that that definition is both clear and one which, if circumstances change appropriately, can be amended in line with what would be appropriate under future circumstances.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for that answer which is reassuring as far as it goes. The trouble is that it only goes a limited distance. He reassures me that he does not have any sinister intention behind the words at present. But I notice that he omitted to answer the question of what use another government at another time may manage to make of the regulation-making powers. He has not denied that it would be possible to introduce workfare under these provisions. For that matter, he has not denied that it would not be impossible to introduce national service under the provisions. Again, even the strongest advocate of such a proposal would agree that it deserves the dignity of primary legislation.
Lord Inglewood: I do not believe that a definition of training can be broadened to turn it into an instrument for the imposition of workfare, as the word is used in contemporary English. The noble Earl asks what possible use a future government—perhaps a sinister
678
future government—may make of these proposals. I am not in a position to be able to give the noble Earl a categoric response; we do not know. However, taking the argument one stage further; to have the kind of sinister government in the future to which the noble Earl alludes, it would be necessary for that government to have a majority in the other place. If that government had a majority in the other place, there is every likelihood that they may be able to introduce legislation of which people disapprove by virtue of their being a government and therefore by virtue of their majority. The point being made by the noble Earl therefore is not one which in practice will be relevant. If it is possible to introduce some extremely difficult and far-ranging proposition, it will be the result of the decision of the British people in the ballot boxes.
Earl Russell: I accept the point the Minister makes in relation to a future government having a majority in another place. But a future government also may feel that that flexibility permitted them to do things which they would not risk doing with a narrow majority or a crowded legislative timetable.
Ultimately the power must stand or fall by the extent of the vires. Once the vires are there we must take the risk that they will be used. If the Minister has taken legal advice on the point that it would be impossible to introduce workfare, I would be glad to hear about that. But in relation to national service, I am sure that the Minister remembers the phrase "basic training". That could literally, within the ordinary meaning of the words, be introduced under these powers. I feel that one should be extremely careful before one leaves powers of this kind lying around. One ought, at all stages, to assume that something bad may be done with them.
I believe that all governments ex officio should be regarded as untrustworthy, and that includes any government of which one might oneself be a member. The last thing one should ever do is trust oneself with the exercise of power. So I hope that the Minister will not in any way take it personally when I say that any restrictions that they have should be put in, fearing the worst. As King James I put it, "From bad manners good laws". There is a lot in that maxim.
Lord Inglewood: I can confirm to the noble Earl that we have not taken legal advice on the particular point I raised. I shall write to him about it later.
Earl Russell: In that case, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("provided that any registration required by such regulations shall be at one agency only, and that the designated persons are appropriately trained").
The noble Baroness said: Of all the amendments on the Marshalled List today, this one is very simple to read and one does not have to look at the Bill itself because the amendment is quite clear. It is sensibly asking that when people are required to register under the proposed regulations, they should go to one place only to register.

679
Hand in hand with that, the officials whom they see should be trained over the wide range of issues that they will be considering.
For instance, currently young people have to register at the Benefits Agency, with the Careers Service and the Employment Service. The Government have said that they promise that these three bodies will be reduced to a two-stop shop. We hope that the Government will accept this amendment and we cannot see any reason why they should not. If there is a one-stop shop it will be particularly helpful to young people for a number of reasons. It will mean that they can identify the whole range of requirements of the legislation, but also their needs. They will be able to deal with one officer in that one office, whether it is about benefits, the employment position or their job opportunities and the Career Service support that is going to be given to them.
There may well be another beneficial effect that the Minister may not like as much. It may recoup some of the large amount of unclaimed benefits. We hear a great deal about people claiming benefits to which some allege they are not entitled, but there are also a great many people who are entitled to them, but who do not actually draw the benefits because they are not aware of them. This amendment will enable the individual to plug into one office and deal with one official with whom they can identify, although that may not be possible. In addition, there will be the tracking facility for them as regards employment and the benefit position. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: An extremely sensible suggestion has just been made. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept this amendment, perhaps he will come forward with a better drafted one at the next stage.
Lord Inglewood: As I have already explained, it is the Government's intention to ensure that as many young people as possible receive education or training and do not become dependent on benefit. But as we have also debated there are exceptional circumstances in which some 16 and 17 year-olds will have to claim JSA.
It is important that those 16 and 17 year-olds who do claim JSA receive the best possible careers advice and support to help them move quickly off benefit and into training. That is why 16 and 17 year-olds claiming JSA will be required to register with the Careers Service. They are the specialists and the people best placed to ensure 16 and 17 year-olds get all the available advice on training, education and employment with training options.
The JSA is a single benefit. Its introduction will allow us to streamline the arrangements for dealing with 16 and 17 year-olds and to improve the service they receive. As the noble Baroness said, at present, as well as going to the Careers Service, 16 and 17 year-olds have to visit the Benefits Agency as well as the Jobcentre to claim income support. Our intention is that 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to claim JSA and deal with related matters at the Jobcentre. I hope that answers the noble Baroness's point.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, although it does not answer
680
my point, as I am sure he accepts. The jobseeker's allowance will be paid to some young people because they are not in work. The Bill is intended to try to get people back into work, which is what we all want. Many young people see employment offices at the moment as giving them any job, whereas there should be a package and a claimant should be told, "You're on JSA until we can get you into some kind of employment which will help you forwards". People should not be offered just any old job; they should be offered a job in which they can progress throughout life. Such development is absolutely crucial.
We need an integrated policy, not a series of separate policies. The noble Lord may feel that it is not possible to do that at the moment. If that is because of bureaucratic or administrative problems, that is one thing; but if it is an ideological problem (because we have completely different approaches) that is another thing. Before I make a decision on the amendment, I would appreciate it if the noble Lord could indicate which of those two attitudes dictated his reply.
Lord Inglewood: As I explained earlier, the key to understanding the jobseeker's allowance is that it is a single benefit. That is the core approach, whatever the category of jobseeker's allowance. Part of the nature of the jobseeker's agreement which we have been debating is to try to establish a plan of action to assist the jobseeker to get into work. That is where the role of the careers service fits in. That is why we believe that it is appropriate that there should be an interface at the Jobcentres as well as at the careers offices.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: Clearly we have a little misunderstanding. I hear what the noble Lord says, and although it does not respond to my point, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that if Amendment No. 30 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 31.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, leave out line 34.
The noble Earl said: This is another delegated powers probing amendment. I should like to ask the same five questions as before. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can indicate that he has a copy of those questions, perhaps I need not repeat them. Does the noble Lord have a copy? If so, I can save some time by not running through them again.
The amendment, deals with the question of allowing the Government by regulation to determine the age-related amount which is applicable. Again, I want to know the usual five things. In particular, as this is a highly contentious issue to which we shall be returning at a later stage, I want to know how this House could give or withhold its consent if the Government changed

681
the amount. As we are still told that Parliament makes the law, I think that that is a question which deserves an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not have to hand the questions which the noble Earl sent me, so I am in some difficulty, but perhaps—
Earl Russell: If it would be any help, I can repeat the questions. First, why do the Government want a delegated power? Secondly, what do they want to do with it? Thirdly, what other things could be done with the power by some other government? Fourthly, what are the extreme limits of that power and what are the worst things that it legally creates the vires to do? Fifthly, how can Parliament give or withhold its consent to things done under the power? I am sorry to have assumed that the Minister had a copy of the questions when he did not. All of us have to deal with a lot of papers today.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am still in some difficulty because the amendment in the name of the noble Earl at which I am looking is to delete line 34:
"determining the age-related amount applicable to him".
I had come prepared to explain in some detail why we had come to the conclusion that the JSA for the under 25 year-olds (the 18 to 24 year-old group) should be paid at a lower rate. Therefore I should prefer to take away the noble Earl's questions, consider them and reply to his letter in some detail.
Perhaps I may say, however, that JSA brings together two benefits—unemployment benefit and income support. As I said earlier, it is a well-established feature of income support that young single people receive a lower rate of benefit. Under JSA we shall be adopting for unemployed young people the same treatment as they receive on income support. As I said earlier, the average earnings of the 18 to 24 year-old group is two-thirds of the average for all adults, and if the young person has a family he can claim income-based JSA and obtain the same rate of benefit as any other family.
I did not say this earlier, but the large majority (about 75 per cent.) of income support recipients under 25 do not live independently. Where the claimant does not live at home, he can obtain housing benefit on the same basis as anyone else.
What this group of people needs is help to get into work and out of unemployment. The service has been testing special programmes geared to the needs of young people. National programmes will provide 130,000 places from April 1995. We believe that that is the right approach and make no apology for looking at the wider earnings of young people in that age group and coming to the conclusion that they can have less than those aged 25 or over.
I am not sure whether that is what the noble Earl was wondering when he asked what the Government intend to do with the power and what else could be done. I apologise to him. I was not aware that this was where he was going to attack me with those questions. As there
682
are other parts of the Bill in which these matters come up, I have no doubt that I shall be able to address the various points about which he has written to me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly baffled. I wonder whether there has been a typographical mistake. The amendment refers to omitting line 34, which does not refer to regulations. I wondered whether the noble Earl meant it to refer to line 38 which states:
"shall be determined in accordance with regulations",
or whether there is an issue here that has escaped me. It seems to me that the noble Earl's points and the Minister's reply just passed each other by.
Earl Russell: The best I can do is to beg leave to withdraw my amendment in as good order as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) making prescribed additions to offset the extra costs that are incurred as a direct result of a claimant's disability")
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 37. I consider that the amount of the JSA, whether contribution-based or income-based, should be increased to take account of the extra costs a disabled person might face in seeking a job compared with the costs faced by a non-disabled person.
Those extra costs can arise in connection with travel to and from interviews and the jobcentre. Even though a disabled person may be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of the DLA (previously termed the mobility allowance) that may be earmarked for the purchase of a powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair which, as the Committee will know, is not provided by the NHS. Moreover, even if the disabled person has a car, perhaps paid for by the HRM/DLA, or mobility allowance through the Motability scheme, he may be forced to resort to expensive taxis because parking places do not exist near the prospective employer's premises or at the jobcentre. If such facilities do exist, arrangements cannot be made for parking for casual job applicants, or they are being used by able-bodied people.
Blind people may need to be accompanied to interviews and jobcentres. They may also need the services of a reader in searching for advertised jobs. Deaf people may need to invest in equipment to communicate with prospective employers. They may incur extra expense through using the teletype system and they may need to be accompanied to interviews by a signer.
Those are but a few examples of the possible extra costs that disabled people may incur in looking for employment. Extra costs are not suffered by non-disabled jobseekers. As regards employment, the access-to-work scheme could offset all those extra costs but the scheme is not available to help disabled people seeking work.
In Standing Committee on 7th February in the other place, Mr. Roger Evans, when responding to Keith Bradley, stated at col. 253:
"If he is trying to argue that there are specific travel, interview or search costs, I shall go away and think on the matter".
Later at the Report stage, the Minister of State, Miss Widdecombe, responding to Mr. Bradley, stated:
"I reassure him that the Employment Service can fund the costs of travel to interview, the cost of escorts to and from interview, which are important for people with disabilities, the cost of providing communications for the deaf at interview and other similar measures".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/95; col. 374.]
I have not given my noble friend notice of the following questions. If he cannot answer them tonight, perhaps he will write to me. Who is right? Exactly what help is available? Does it cover such equipment as is covered in the access-to-work scheme? Under what conditions is help offered? Are they the same as those for access-to-work? Is all the appropriate help that is available under access-to-work also available for disabled people who are seeking work on exactly the same terms? How does a disabled person go about securing help when seeking work? Is the help available immediately it is requested or, as with access-to-work, does it take several weeks for the application to be investigated and agreed? I beg to move.
Lord Carter: We on these Benches are pleased to support the amendment. During many years and in respect of many Bills we have discussed the extra costs that are faced by disabled people. Obviously that applies to seeking work. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to access-to-work and I believe that when we deal with the disability Bill we shall have many interesting discussions on the relationship between access-to-work and the measures proposed in that Bill.
Without recognition of the extra cost faced by disabled people in their search for work, specifically in meeting the conditions of entitlement to benefit, they could be unfairly penalised through no fault of their own. I understand that in discussion in another place those issues were recognised. I hope that the Government will give the assurances for which the noble Lord has asked.
Earl Russell: We too support the amendment. I shall not repeat the argument because the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put it so well. I am happy to say that he spoke for both of us.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendments seek to make additional payments in both contribution-based and income-based jobseeker's allowance to people who incur costs as a direct result of their disabilities. In the case of contribution-based JSA, the result would be to cut across the long-standing principle on which contributory benefits for the unemployed are based.
Those who have worked and paid contributions will be able to receive contribution-based JSA for six months irrespective of their means. The principle of contributory benefit is that it is, basically, a flat-rate income-replacement benefit, paid irrespective of other personal circumstances. Additional help for those with
684
disabilities is available elsewhere in the benefit system, including income-based jobseeker's allowance and disability living allowance which can be paid on top of contributory benefit.
Income-based JSA will closely follow income support rules, and I can assure my noble friend that it will include provision for appropriate premia to be paid to disabled people in addition to the personal allowance. The disability premium in income support recognises increased living costs of the disabled and long-term sick for items such as extra heating, special diets, more expensive travel, and laundry costs.
We do not accept, therefore, that there is a case for a further additional payment to unemployed people who are looking for work. We believe the financial resources available are better used in measures which will actually help disabled people into jobs. I shall go through some of the help available. As I mentioned earlier today, the Employment Service will be spending an extra £71 million over the first three years following the introduction of incapacity benefit to direct just that kind of special help at disabled people.
I should say to my noble friend that there is no evidence that unemployed disabled people attending any of the Employment Service programmes aimed at helping with jobsearch face additional expenditure costs to enable them to attend or participate fully. Fares are paid to enable people to attend such courses. While there is an upper limit which is sufficient for most people, no limit is imposed on disabled people. The full cost is met for disabled people, including parking fees and taxi fares. People attending Employment Service courses such as restart courses, job review workshop and other ES provisions will be able to receive wide-ranging assistance which includes a personal reader service for visually impaired people and signers for people with hearing problems. For those with physical disabilities, help is given by furnishing access to the premises of programme providers by providing, for example, ramps or other equipment. In 1995–1996, £100,000 has been set aside for that.
The access-to-work scheme can provide a similar range of help for people attending interviews or starting work. Therefore, it is available to all people who may need to claim. It can provide up to £21,000 to individuals over a period of five years, although most will need much less than that. In addition targeted advice is provided for options available to claimants through the disability employment adviser.
I hope that my explanation of the assistance available answers my noble friend's questions. I appreciate that he asked me quite a number of questions. I shall read what he said and make sure that I have answered them all. If I have not answered any of his questions, I shall write to him. I hope that he will understand the point which I make; namely, that help is available through the special premia which exist for all disabled people. It is available also, through the Employment Service, for those seeking jobs who have the problems that I mentioned in the examples which I gave.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend started by giving me the impression that he was going to disappoint me, but

685
he ended up by rather encouraging me, which is always a good sign. I like to be encouraged. I look forward to hearing the answers to my questions from my noble friend. I shall read what he has said with the greatest interest. However, I reserve the right to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The earnings disregard in respect of part-time earnings shall be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that I may hang onto the coat-tails of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and provoke the good humour of the Minister. We may, perhaps, end the evening on a bright note. However, I am not sure about that. It is a matter of money and that is something which it is always very difficult to persuade the Government to come forward with.
The proposed provision is quite straightforward. It would enable the disregard in respect of part-time earnings to be index linked. Of course, the disregard is really a means of providing a bridge to enable the individual to go from being unemployed to actually getting back into employment. Indeed, it would ease the situation and would act in a way which would not discourage people from taking part-time work which, eventually, could also lead to full-time employment.
We suggest that it not only makes sense to up-rate the disregard annually, but that it is also the honest thing to do. If the Government have reached the view that this is the level to set when the Bill becomes law, it makes sense to maintain that relative value. Of course, I am aware that the unemployment benefit disregard itself has not been up-rated since about 1982. We certainly would not want to see that situation continuing under the Bill when it is enacted.
There are a number of benefits that are not up-rated and that, too, has encouraged us to table the amendment so that it would be on the face of the Bill. That would mean that it would not be discretionary and that it would require an annual review of the level of disregard so as to provide some measure of assurance of a retention of the value of the disregard year on year. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I mentioned earlier this evening, the jobseeker's allowance will have common rules for the contribution-based and income-based claimants. The rules applying in unemployment benefit are complex and outdated relating to the daily benefit paid in respect of six days a week. We are aligning the rules with those of income support and applying an earnings disregard which, for most single claimants, will be £5 a week.
The level of the disregard is designed to strike a balance between providing an incentive to do some work without creating a disincentive to take up full-time work. Part-time work, supplemented by JSA, cannot be
686
an acceptable long-term option. We believe that across-the-board increases can act as a disincentive to move off benefit and into more substantial work.
It has never been thought right to up-rate earnings disregard automatically. We prefer to concentrate on maintaining and, wherever possible, improving overall benefit levels rather than increasing the amount of the earnings disregard, which can only benefit those who are able to work part-time. Increasing disregards currently across income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit by only £1 a week would cost in the region of £25 million a year. Therefore, looking at increasing disregards is not exactly a costless option.
One has to look at what we are doing in JSA as a package. We believe that it is important to introduce new incentives for people to take up, or stay in, part-time work. As I have already mentioned, we shall be doing that not by increasing the disregards by small amounts each year but by giving a new joint £10 disregard for couples through the back-to-work bonus and through the increase in the partner's hours rule from 16 to 24 hours, which we discussed earlier.
We believe that that is the right way to go about such issues and not in fact to give the right of reviewing annually the earnings disregard which currently stands, as I said, at £5. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the noble Baroness, in that she has not managed to get such a satisfactory answer on this occasion as that received by my noble friend for his amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: As a colleague has just said, "What's new!" I am disappointed but not surprised in my disappointment. I feel that it is all of matter of penny pinching. Indeed, £5 is not a great deal of money. Perhaps we should have tried to get the whole lot index linked. However, we thought that we would have a go on this one and that the Minister might see sense. If it is worth £5 today as a disregard to act as an incentive—or not to be a disincentive—for people to go into work, then that kind of logic should follow through year on year; otherwise it does not have a logical base. I hear what the Minister says. With the permission of the Committee, I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) In the case of a claimant residing with his spouse or contributing to the maintenance of his spouse, there shall be added the amount specified in Schedule 4, Part IV, column 3 of the Benefits Act (adult dependant's allowance).").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the adult dependence allowance. This amendment seeks to protect the status quo. What is the current situation? At the moment someone who qualifies by virtue of National Insurance contributions and the work test, receives unemployment benefit for 12 months, which for him—let us assume he is the main earner—is £45.45, and for her is £28.05. In other words, as a couple, they receive £73.50 based on the claimant's record. Any savings, any redundancy payment, or her earnings do

687
not affect this couple's allowance. It is a benefit as of right paid for by him, covering them both. It is a contributory benefit.
Under JSA such a couple are penalised not once, not twice, but three times over. We think this extraordinarily harsh. First, the contributory benefit is cut from 12 months to six months; thereafter it is means tested. That is bad enough but, secondly—this relates very much to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, earlier this evening—that six months contributory JSA does not include an allowance for a spouse. It is simply in other words a non-means-tested benefit of £45 for the claimant; it is a personal allowance, not a couple or family allowance, as it was under unemployment benefit. If the claimant claims what he is currently entitled to—the adult dependence allowance—he promptly moves from a contributory to a means-tested benefit on day one, without even six months on the contributory benefit for which his National Insurance was designed to pay.
He has been robbed twice. If he does not claim for her, his benefit is cut from 12 months back to six months; it is cut back from 12 months to nothing, in terms of a contributory benefit, if he does claim for her. As soon as he claims for her, and therefore goes onto a means-tested benefit, he is then penalised a third time in terms of any modest savings he may have had. He loses £1 in benefit for every £250 he has in capital over the £3,000 rule, and loses all benefit if he has savings over £8,000. Those savings may have been accumulated by weekly or monthly savings but they may be the result of a redundancy payment of, say, £10,000 which will have to be exhausted before they get means-tested benefit. Or the savings may have resulted from an injury compensation or an industrial accident compensation and that money will not be used as compensation, as was intended, but as a living allowance before he can claim the benefit they were entitled to under National Insurance rules.
In other words, he is offered the Faustian choice of, "Maintain your wife or maintain your savings, but you cannot do both". Is that what the Government really intend? Is not that an attack on the family, on the one hand, and on the principle of thrift and savings on the other? For the Government to manage both in one Bill is pretty good. The Government expect to make some £220 million savings in a full year by moving from 12 months to six months contributory benefit; and of that, scrapping the adult dependence allowance will save £20 million. The Government themselves estimate that some 5,000 people will be pushed onto means-tested benefits, thus increasing their poverty trap.
So what have we? We have a Bill that not only savages the contributory principle, reducing it from 12 months to six months, even though National Insurance payments, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy mentioned, have recently been raised by 10 per cent. bringing in £2.2 billion to the Treasury, but also attacks the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to earlier on; namely, that social security benefits are household or family benefits. Yet the Government in their usual Janus-faced way casuistically are seeking to have it both ways. His contributory
688
benefit does not cover her, but if she is working her earnings are expected to cover him and he loses benefit pound for pound. Which is it that the Government will have? His contributory benefit does not cover her, it belongs exclusively to him. The moment she works, her earnings are expected to cover them both and he loses benefit. In other words, social security benefits cover them both when it saves the Government money but do not cover them both when it costs the Government money. So much for a Government of insurance, savings and the family. The Government's Bill attacks all three. The Government have made the JSA test harsher. They have then proceeded to cut the value of the benefit, just as they have with incapacity benefit.
We could at least mitigate some of the deep unfairness and unpleasantness of the Bill if the Committee were minded to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The proposed amendment seeks to introduce into the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance an increase in respect of adult dependants. We do not accept that it is necessary to introduce such payments.
Contribution-based JSA is an entitlement built up by an individual work record and will be paid as a personal benefit which does not take into account the claimant's family circumstances. No adult dependency increase will be paid. On the other hand, no account will be taken of a partner's earnings.
We recognise the anxieties of the noble Baroness about provisions for claimants who have dependants. However, claimants with partners will be able to claim income-related jobseeker's allowance. Indeed, under existing rules, the great majority of unemployment benefit beneficiaries receiving an adult dependency increase already also receive income support. The increase in unemployment benefit is already dependent on the partner's circumstances. It is currently payable only if the partner's earnings are less than the extra amount of benefit.
I accept that the removal of the adult dependency increase from the contributions benefit means the income test will be applied to more people earlier. We estimate, and the noble Baroness herself mentioned, that at any one time 5,000 people will be entitled to income-related jobseeker's allowance as a result of there being no adult dependency increase in the contributory element. However, that is in line with the aim of targeting help through the benefits system at those who need it.
We accept that it would be unfair to remove the adult dependency increase from the benefit of those who are receiving it when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced. Therefore, people receiving adult dependency increases when the allowance is introduced will be protected and may continue to receive the increase for the balance of their entitlement.
I do not suppose that I have persuaded the noble Baroness of the good sense of what we are doing. I noticed that a general attack was made on most of the Bill, but I am awaiting any indication that the party opposite might pledge, between now and the next

689
election, that if it were elected it would restore the six months to 12 months. I understand that there was total silence on that subject in the other place.
On the subject we are discussing with this amendment, I explained why we came to the conclusion we did. I hope that, having listened to my explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister did not offer an explanation; he offered a description. That is not the same thing at all. He described what the Government intend to do, but he neither explained, justified or excused it. He said that somebody who has paid national insurance for a contributory benefit based on the family principle that that benefit supports both claimant and partner will immediately come off that contributory benefit if he seeks to claim the benefit for his partner and will move to means-tested benefit. In other words, anybody who seeks to claim for their partner is not entitled to any contributory benefit, despite having paid national insurance contributions for that purpose.
If that is not an attack on the family and on savings and the principle of insurance I do not know what is. It is too late at night to pursue the issue further, but it is one of the more shabby and despicable elements of a despicable Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 2, after ("amounts") insert (", which shall include a premium for lone parents,").
The noble Earl said: I hope that we may be able to dispose of this amendment quickly.
The amendment is moved in order to ask the Minister for an assurance for which I asked him at Second Reading. Again because of the immense press of paper that these matters produce, I did not receive an answer. I asked him about a story which appeared in the Independent just before Second Reading that the Government intended to withdraw the premium for lone parents. I invite the Minister to tell me that that is not true. I am perfectly ready to accept such an assurance if he does, and I would be much relieved. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that there is any need for this amendment. The income-based jobseeker's allowance will closely follow the income support rules and will include provision for appropriate premia to be paid, including to lone parents and families, in addition to the personal allowance. This ensures that lone parents who wish to look for work will be able to claim JSA and that their benefit will be no less than they would have received on income support.
As we made clear in the JSA White Paper, lone parents will have a choice whether to register for work or claim income support. But we will support and promote measures that encourage lone parents into work. There will be a £15 earning disregard for lone parents in JSA, as in income support, recognising the particular difficulties faced by lone parents in returning
690
to work. Our new back-to-work bonus, together with the child-care disregard that we have already introduced in family credit, provide positive help to lone parents who wish to move into more substantive work.
The noble Earl referred to a newspaper report. As it appeared some weeks ago, if I have seen it I have probably forgotten it. Perhaps I may assure him that there is no campaign against lone parents. We recognise that many do an excellent job bringing up their children, often in difficult circumstances. But we have to make sure that, while supporting children of lone parents, we also give a fair deal to couples with children, and that married couples are not disadvantaged compared with others from a financial point of view. We need to look at this. We also believe that it would be socially irresponsible not to look at some of the more general problems caused by lone parents.
It is not the easiest of circumstances, especially in the sub-group that I define as unmarried mothers, as opposed to the other sub-groups of lone parents who may be divorced or, happily less frequently nowadays, widowed. There is a lot of evidence that for a young teenage girl to get pregnant and become an unmarried mother is not the best situation for her or her child. Perhaps on another day we may have an interesting debate about what responsibilities we have as a society, dare I say, to try to prevent that happening. If it does happen, one hopes that there are benefits in place to help lone parents, whether unmarried or of any other kind.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister has said everything that I hoped he would say. I would be delighted to withdraw the amendment. Before doing so, I say only the following. If he finds a way of preventing people from becoming unmarried mothers he will achieve something that has eluded every ruler since Adam.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 37, leave out subsection (12).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 38 is genuinely a delegated power amendment. It relates to subsection (12) in Clause 4:
"Regulations under subsection (5) may provide that, in prescribed cases, an applicable amount is to be nil".
Put another way, someone may be disentitled to benefit.
I have my usual five questions. I have read the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It says that this power will be used for people in religious orders and other small groups. People in religious orders normally cannot be available for work. If they keep their rule they cannot actively seek work. I do not see why this clause is needed to disentitle them. But even if this is the only intention, is it not the case that the vires of the clause will enable any future government to disentitle any group of people at any time? If so, how will the House have an opportunity to withhold its consent? There may be some cases where benefit is withdrawn and this House as a whole, perhaps on an all-party basis, may passionately

691
want to withhold its consent. If we vote through these vires, how can that be done? While thought is being given to that, we might think about why the vires needed to be so wide. I simply do not see it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, this amendment would remove our power to award a nil applicable amount of jobseeker's allowance to people in prescribed circumstances. The power will be used to ensure that small groups cannot receive jobseeker's allowance where it would not be appropriate for them to do so. The noble Earl mentioned people in religious orders. That indeed would be one small group; so would prisoners; so would certain people coming from abroad who come here on the basis that they will not in fact be a burden on the state in any way; and, at the risk, at this late hour, of rejoining a battle that we had much earlier in the day, so would those not habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
The power to prescribe a nil rate of benefit is longstanding and pre-dates income support. We believe that it would be inappropriate to specify in primary legislation the special very small categories which it excludes. The power to prescribe in secondary legislation provides a more flexible and sensible mechanism whereby regulations can provide in certain circumstances that a person is or is not to have access to benefit.
The noble Earl asked me whether we could not just give a nil amount to anyone and perhaps extend the groups. The power enables us to take out particular groups. It could not be used to take out the generality of claimants because quite clearly they could not be defined as a group as in this clause. I hope that that reassures him.
In very general terms, I am afraid that one can never give a guarantee that a future government will not behave with regulated powers in a way of which the noble Earl, or even myself, does not approve. But equally one cannot guarantee that they will not behave with primary legislation in ways of which we do not approve. Certainly, if a government tried to put through material of which the other place did not approve, that Chamber could prevent that happening.
This Chamber has conventions, but life can be made a little more difficult for government if we do not try to take on board deep-seated problems. With the kind of doomsday scenario so beloved of the noble Earl in this matter, I think that some of the conventions might not necessarily be held to, not if we are talking about a doomsday scenario with the end of the world as we know it coming about because an iniquitous government is doing quite iniquitous things with the regulations, right, left and centre.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Do I rightly understand what the Minister is saying? In all the events of last year, the official Opposition, even when extremely unhappy in some situations, carefully abided by the well established conventions that govern this Chamber. Is the Minister now saying that the moment that they come on to these Benches and go into opposition, they will not seek to respect such conventions? Is that what the Minister is saying? I think
692
that perhaps he might first seek the guidance of the Leader of the House before he seeks to undermine them. The Leader himself has given an assurance to that effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness should not jump up quite so quickly on these matters. Of course, that is not what I say. I am talking about a doomsday scenario which the noble Earl envisages. The possibility of the party opposite coming to these Benches may be unfortunate—I must have misheard; I thought that I heard the word "unlikely"—but I should not have considered for a moment the doomsday scenario. I believe that succeeding governments would not in fact abuse the powers that they are given under secondary legislation in quite the way in which the noble Earl keeps trying to frighten us into believing might happen some day in the future. I believe—dare I say it?—that even Labour governments are responsible on these matters and have been in the past. I am not old enough to remember whether Liberal governments were responsible enough.
Earl Russell: I think the Minister was cutting a corner by calling abuse of powers "doomsday". If that were doomsday I would be very surprised if any of us would be alive now. Excessive use of powers happens all the time. I think we need to clarify this just a little more. It seems to me the extent of the vires hangs on the definition of a group. Let me ask the Minister about two specific examples. Would that clause serve to give vires to regulations to disentitle people under Clause 21 or to disentitle Welshmen? If it did give those vires, and they were to be used, what could we do about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am glad the noble Earl did not want to disentitle Scotsmen: he chose more wisely than that. I am not a lawyer, which means that my advice comes free. I think I will have to put in a caveat about it and say that I would be very surprised if a lawyer could be found who would define groups quite as widely as the noble Earl is inviting me to think they might be able to do. I will certainly check that, because I understand the point he makes, although in the case of the Welshman he perhaps makes it in a rather frivolous way.
My own view would be, because this has been in legislation for some time and is not new, that the kind of groups that have been taken into legislation by this means have been very small and easily defined as self-contained groups. Of course I will check, as I am invited to do, what the lawyers say, but I really think that the wider groups that the noble Earl is suggesting would not be encompassed by the vires.
Lord Monkswell: I hesitate to intervene so late, but I am a little concerned about the Minister's descriptions. As I understand it, we are talking about the contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and the applicable amount. In his initial remarks he talked about people who might have come from abroad and were trying to claim habitual residence in this country, but did not have it. Almost by definition, these people will not have been paying contributions and therefore do not come under the scope of it.

693
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned groups. I would change that slightly and pick out "prescribed cases", which is what is written on the face of the Bill. I wonder whether we might get an assurance from the Minister that such prescribed cases would never apply to demonstrators, for example, who might be on a jobseeker's allowance and be demonstrating perhaps against some actions of this Government - perhaps in Brightlingsea, demonstrating against the export of live animals. Would the Minister give an assurance that that type of case would never be brought within the scope of this particular regulation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, even at this late hour, is sufficiently awake to notice that people from abroad would not in fact be eligible for the JSA because they would not have a contribution base at all. Perhaps I was slightly short-circuiting the argument. The four examples I gave, which included certain people from abroad, showed how the powers are used on income support to award a nil applicable amount, and the power is used to prescribe these groups in income support. I was simply saying that these were examples of groups that we might be looking at defining when we move across to JSA.
On the wider question - I am not entirely sure what it was other than that: it concerned whether I could guarantee - I am not sure whether we get back to the Welshmen—that the wider groups would not be prescribed.
I cannot go further than to give the answer to the noble Lord that these powers have existed for a long time. We are taking them forward from previous
694
decisions. They could not be used for very wide groups, though I have promised to check on the wide groups mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are talking in the future about using this for income-based jobseeker's allowance. I will be checking the powers I mentioned, but I do not believe that they can be used to draw in very wide groups. That would be an abuse. I am not sure what the Latin tag would be, but I am sure that there is one and that the courts would have something to say if Parliament did not.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister warmly for offering to check. I look forward to hearing the results of his checking and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duration of a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Inglewood: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.