Lords Sitting of 16 May 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Means-Tested Benefits: Disentitlement
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have attempted any cost-benefit analysis of the effects of disentitling people to means-tested social security benefits.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, changes to the provision of means-tested benefits are considered very carefully. Due regard is given to the effect of any change on individuals or groups, on the social security programme as a whole, on other departmental programmes and on any other areas where it is considered that there may be an impact.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has said that he gives "due regard". He has not said how much regard he thinks is due. Can he tell us what he knows about the costs which are incurred by disentitling people to means-tested benefits? Perhaps I may take one example among many. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 16 and 17 year-olds who committed indictable offences last year were without visible legal means of support and if not, why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, "due regard" means just what it says. We look at all the knock-on consequences that may arise and we try to evaluate them as best we can. As regards the specific question, I do not have the answer which the noble Earl seeks. I do not know whether it is available. I do not believe that crime can be so simply put down to those youngsters who have not obeyed the various regulations that would allow them to get training, education or benefit.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord said that some notice has been taken of the effects on groups and individuals. Can he tell us how many people have been evicted or rendered homeless because of reductions in their housing benefit? Will the Minister publish the findings of that research?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot give an answer about housing benefit and the effect on people losing their homes. A specific Question would have to be put down to get that information. Although the noble Lord seems to think so, I am not a walking encyclopaedia with the answers. I say to the noble Lord that the cost to the taxpayer of the various housing support benefits has increased quite considerably over the past few years, which shows that we are taking account of the problems which people on low incomes have as regards their housing costs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, something like half the number of families in Britain now are on means-tested benefit. Can the Minister tell us why?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I read the statement about that and I shall look into it. One of the problems is many people are considered to be on benefit because they are entitled, for example, to retirement pension or child benefit and the like. But housing and council tax benefits are means tested and come into play when one counts how many people are on some form of means-tested benefit. The fact is that we are very generous in the extension of those means-tested benefits and the noble Baroness's question makes that clear.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, my noble friend did not in any way imply that there was a simple answer to crime. However, it is well known that if you have no resources or money you tend to drift into crime. The Government should have statistics on this subject and will they please furnish them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always interested in noble Lords who want statistics on more and more things. I shall certainly look into whether there are statistics on this subject. What is certainly true is that crime is at an unacceptably high level. We all believe that. We are very sure, as any reading of the newspapers will clearly illustrate, that there are many reasons for crime, including, for example, lax family discipline, children not going to school and receiving discipline there, and the rise in the drug culture.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, as regards the Minister's reply to the original Question which refers to,
"cost-benefit analysis of the effects of disentitling people to means-tested … benefits",
he said that a good deal of scrutiny and research takes place into this matter for individuals and groups. I asked the Minister to publish the results of that kind of research so that we can look at it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that I said that. I said,
"Due regard is given to the effect of any change on individuals or groups",
and any changes which may occur across other departmental budgets. I did not specifically mention that we commissioned research or the like, although the Department of Social Security spends a great deal of money undertaking research on a wide range of issues.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many of the homeless children sleeping on the streets of London—admittedly, the number has diminished lately—have nevertheless been in care? Is he aware that they have no home; that they cannot get accommodation and, because they cannot do that, they cannot get a job and, because they cannot get a job, they cannot get accommodation? Is he further aware that, later, they are found to need the health service a great deal because they are not fit and very often they become the permanent unemployed? Would it not be better to help them at this stage with housing benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we take into account some of the factors which the noble Baroness mentioned when we look at hardship payments for this specially pressed group of young children coming off local authority care. My noble friend has rightly pointed out that that is a problem area. Perhaps it is a reflection on local authority care as much as anything else.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has again invoked the interests of taxpayers, but how can he defend the interests of taxpayers unless he knows what his measures cost as well as what his measures say? The Minister clearly does not know the answers. Could he please try to find them out next time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that point. However, I must advise the noble Earl that even the might of the computer cannot deal with some questions. Indeed, some of the behavioural aspects of the problems that he has raised are among the questions on which it is most difficult to get proper, scientific statistical analysis—I emphasise the word "scientific".

Taxation: Government Policy
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that any reduction in direct taxation is necessarily accompanied by an increase in indirect taxation; and, if so, whether they are satisfied that this has been clearly explained to the public.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's clear policy is to reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector, and that means reducing the level of all taxes when it is prudent to do so. However, we have also sought to shift the burden of taxation, over time, from income to spending. This allows people to keep as much of their own money as possible, to spend or save as they choose.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which was nothing like I had expected. I shall leave the matter as it stands.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as the Minister did not even attempt to reply to the Question, may I try? In fact, what the Government have done is to increase both direct and indirect taxes, so the one does not necessarily accompany the other. Because the Minister did not answer the Question, may I ask him whether he is now saying that the Government will not be increasing indirect taxes at the next Budget in order to cut direct taxes? Is he giving us that assurance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that my original Answer did not answer the Question. I thought that it did. The noble Lord knows more than most Members of your Lordships' House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to decide every year on what he needs to raise to
408
pay for the Government's spending and at the same time has to take into account the need to keep down borrowing. He then decides on the balance of taxation and on whether he has to put up taxes—as we have had to do—in order to retain sound public finances. That is now paying dividends in the growth of our economy.
If the Chancellor is to reduce taxation he has to decide where to do so. I should, of course, point out to the House that the rules of the European Union inhibit one's scope for action on value added tax. However, we are at heart a tax-cutting party and the sooner that we can get back to doing that, the better pleased we shall all be.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the philosophy of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government is to tax spending rather more than income, and that that has happened over the past few years because the amount taken by direct taxation is now a much lower percentage of one's income, bearing in mind the fact that VAT does not extend to the essentials of life such as food and transport? Does my noble friend also agree that despite some taxes being increased, the standard of living of the average family in this country has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms over the period of our government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right that real income per head has increased by nearly £50 per week since 1979. My noble friend is also right that a balance has to be struck between direct and indirect taxes. It is well worth pointing out that the United Kingdom's standard rate of value added tax is lower than that of most of our fellow members of the European Union, and our effective rate of VAT is lower than the European Union average.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not the real truth that the British people are more heavily taxed now than in 1979 despite the fact that we have had a government who claim to be a tax-cutting government? Is not that the truth and is not whatever else one says about the balance between direct and indirect taxation a smokescreen to hide the truth from the people?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the figures are difficult to quantify because the standards of living and the incomes of the great majority of our people have increased considerably since 1979 and, of course, they have paid more in taxes. Indeed, the top 10 per cent. pay a greater share of income tax now than they did in 1979. I should have thought that the party opposite would welcome that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case that it is rather indecent for a party which is constantly demanding increases in expenditure to complain about increases in taxation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had refrained from making that point, but my noble and learned friend has made it for me—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: When?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hear the question "When?". I suggest that those of your Lordships who attend deliberations on the Pensions Bill will from time to time hear a cry for more expenditure. Indeed, the same cry has been heard on all other Bills on which I have served. I think that we all know that the party opposite is keen to increase expenditure on certain areas although it is pretty reticent about putting a figure on that at the moment because it realises that the British people are with the Conservatives—
Lord Richard: Look behind you!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:—as far as tax cutting is concerned. Come the next election, noble Lords opposite may find that once again they have laughed too soon.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we want a decent society we have to pay for it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course we agree with that. That is why government expenditure in my Department of Social Security is at £90 billion. That does not mean that we should abrogate any responsibility to try to control that expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers whose money it is.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I find it difficult to keep up with all this. Has the Minister found time today to read the Financial Times, which says that there is concern among Tory Back-Benchers that his party has deserted its core electorate and broken promises to be the champions of low taxation? The reason for that is the latest Inland Revenue figures which show that more people are paying taxes than ever before. Does not that concern him? Even if he is not worried about what the British people feel, does he not think that he should pay a little attention to the concerns of his Back-Benchers? I think the reference is to the Back-Benchers in the other place rather than those now sitting stolidly behind him.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I accept that the British people believe in paying as little tax as possible. That is why in the past 16 years we have appealed to them so successfully as a party 'which has tried to keep down taxes. However, they also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, want to ensure that we spend taxpayers' money on the kind of things of which they approve, such as some of the social security budget and other government department budgets. There is a balance to be struck. The idea that the party opposite has suddenly become tax cutters by instinct beggars belief. More people have come into taxation because we have a larger working population, and, as I said earlier, many of our people are very much better of now than they were in 1979 and so do pay more taxes.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister at least correct his last factual statement? The reason more people have come into taxation is that the Government have reduced the married man's tax allowance. That is what the Inland Revenue says. It has nothing to do with the points that he makes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is a combination of factors. The point the noble Lord makes may be one of the factors. As he has gone into these territories and thus allowed me to give this answer, perhaps I may say that today over 1 million fewer people pay tax than they would do had we maintained and indexed the tax regime we inherited in 1979.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister has referred continually to the great majority of people being better off. Does that mean that he does not care about the minority who are no doubt worse off?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, the great majority of our people are much better off. Most of our people are either better off or much better off. Through the social security system we attempt to cater for those people who, through no fault of their own, are without proper means and without jobs. We run a social security system that costs this country £90 billion. That is generous by anyone's standards.

Apple Growers and EU Directive
2.53 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their interpretation of the European Union's apple-grubbing directive has disadvantaged fruit growers; and, if so, what plans they have for compensation.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we believe that the steps which the ministry has taken have benefited growers. I believe the Question refers to one of the scheme's conditions which could have led to bad husbandry. The ministry's legal advice was that the Commission regulation required that condition for effective enforcement. However, MAFF officials pursued the matter vigorously. As a result, the Commission issued an interpretative note which will allow us to solve the problem and will be most helpful to growers in the scheme.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. First, I declare an interest as the president of English Apples and Pears, although I am no longer a fruit grower and have no financial interest in the Question. I should not like the Question to pass without saying publicly what tremendous support the horticultural division has given the industry over the past 18 months. Will the Minister assure the House that those who have suffered severe financial loss which they believe to be due to incorrect advice will receive a sympathetic hearing from the ministry if they present a case?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, the ministry has already demonstrated its willingness to help the industry. It is open to any grower at any time to make representations to the ministry. They will he considered. While I cannot readily see a case for compensation, I underline the point that the ministry has sought at all times to help growers in

411
relation to the apple-grubbing scheme. On a more general level, it works closely with growers and their customers to ensure the future success of English apples.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the apple-grubbing scheme was not fundamental to the CAP's purposes and policy, was the directive necessary? Could not we avoid having such directives in future?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it was a regulation rather than a directive. It sought to strike some balance in the European apple market so that demand and supply were better equated. An excess of supply—in bad years there were notorious gluts—means that low prices cause growers to lose considerable amounts of money, and it also costs money to put apples into intervention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that of all the member states of the European Union only the UK told its growers that their right to take the partial grubbing grant was conditional and that the condition proscribed any future replanting beyond the confines of existing retained orchard areas? It seems that the UK got it wrong. Do the Government now intend to put it right?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we got nothing wrong. We interpreted the regulation and on that basis carried it into our own legislation. As the noble Lord will he aware, there was considerable pressure from the industry, both here and on the Continent, to bring in such a scheme. It was therefore processed quickly. The UK was not the only nation to ask for interpretative notes after the scheme had been published.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, so that we may study the matter further, will the Minister inform the House whether the regulation was subject to the approval of the Agriculture Council, or was it issued direct by the Commission under previously delegated powers? I ask the question because the replies seem to be a little unsatisfactory and one would like to investigate them further.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the directive was agreed by the Agriculture Council. The regulation was agreed to by the management committee. So it was done through the normal procedures and subject to the normal checks and balances.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that he believed that it was right that we should have a regulated market in apples. Is he aware that some of us are put out that we should hear that from a Conservative? Does he agree that there are many other markets which would benefit from regulation?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I was not suggesting that we wanted a regulated market in apples. The market presently suffers a weakness due to the fact that there is a huge oversupply. There is also an intervention system which continues to encourage that oversupply. We are merely trying to bring the market back into balance. We are not seeking to regulate it, as the noble Lord implied.

Channel 5
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will delay awarding the Channel 5 licence until cross-media ownership rules are in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, no, the award of the Channel 5 licence is a matter for the Independent Television Commission.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that anyone who establishes a dominant position in the media can control much of what people read, see and hear, and can influence a great deal of what they think? Would not one small, sensible step be to delay the granting of the Channel 5 licence until the new cross-media rules can guarantee that no person and no group can exploit its cross-media capacity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the process for choosing a licence holder for Channel 5 is being conducted under long-standing rules legislated in your Lordships' House in 1990 in the Broadcasting Act.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, surely my noble friend is right. It is dotty that 18 months ago the Government announced that the rules under which the channel allocations were made were inappropriate and out of date but now have such an allocation taking place under those rules. We can read in the newspapers about the new cross-media rules down to the detail of what every Cabinet Minister said. When will the Government grant the House the favour of learning what their new cross-media rules are?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not need to warn the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. However, I can tell him that we shall be publishing our rules on cross-media ownership somewhere between soon, shortly and in the near future. The noble Lord can read into that as he wishes.
Perhaps I may return to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I assumed that he was referring to a bid made in conjunction with News International. That was the fourth bid on the list for the new Channel 5 licence and it was for the lowest amount of money. The ITC is publishing summaries of the applications and is inviting comments by 13th June. Those summaries will be available in ITC offices, selected libraries throughout the country and, of course, the Library of your Lordships' House. The public will be able to give their views on the applicants' proposals, in particular with regard to the nature and balance of the programmes proposed. The ITC intends to announce its decision by 30th November. If a licence is awarded Channel 5 will begin no later than 1st January 1997.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it may be a good joke to talk about shortly, in the near future and so forth. However, are we not entitled to a more serious answer

413
to the Question? A large number of people want to know the answer and therefore is not something a little better than the Minister has given called for?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can add no more. Our conclusions will be announced in due course.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, has any of the proposed European legislation been taken into consideration in respect of cross-media ownership?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are aware of the EC Green Paper on pluralism and media concentration in the internal market. The Government will soon be responding to the Commission's questionnaire on pluralism and media concentration. That response will reflect the Government's assessment of the way forward in this country. A copy will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, do the Government still believe that there is a case for Channel 5?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes, we do. The case is proved by the fact that four bids were made for the licence.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what would the view of the Government have been if News International's bid had been the top bid?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an entirely hypothetical question. It was the lowest bid. Perhaps I may emphasise that it is for the ITC to decide and not the Government.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, my noble friend gave an answer about timing. Will he advise the House, even in general terms, the differential in timing that he envisages between the award of the Channel 5 licence and the cross-media ownership rules being in place? Are we talking of one year, five years or three months?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend must wait until the Government announce their proposals on cross-media ownership. At this stage I can give him no further clue.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as we are still waiting for the decision to be made there is time for discussion. Will the Minister inform the Secretary of State for National Heritage that if it is true that he supported a 10 per cent. maximum holding, but that other Ministers supported a 29 per cent. holding, he will receive great sympathy if he continues to fight for the lower level?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must warn the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about believing what he reads in the newspapers. We have looked most carefully at cross-media ownership, which is an important issue. Our review aims to protect the pluralism and diversity of the media in this country while allowing companies to exploit new opportunities and to compete internationally.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House realises that Mr. Murdoch and News International made the lowest bid? However, the Minister should not jump to the conclusion that Mr.
414
Murdoch is making any uncharacteristic mistakes. We do not know the true story of what is happening. However, let us assume that the Government are proved to be wrong, which would not be unprecedented, and that someone takes control to a large extent. In that case, will the Government plead that they do not believe in retrospective legislation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord posed an interesting question. However, it was entirely speculative and hypothetical and I ant afraid that I cannot possibly answer it.

Jobseekers Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 22A:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Payment of benefit when awaiting determination.
(". Where a doubt arises as to whether the claimant is available for employment or is to be treated as available for employment under section 6, or actively seeking employment or to be treated as actively seeking employment under section 7 an income-based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable pending a determination by the adjudication officer at an amount determined in accordance with section 4 but reduced by 40 per cent. of the claimant's personal rate which would otherwise be applicable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is one of natural justice: that one should not be punished before one's case has been heard and a decision made as to whether one is guilty. I hope that because the amendment relates to natural justice, all noble Lords will feel able to support it.
Let us suppose that you are unemployed for more than a year and that you are in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance, which is worth about £5 a day and is all you have to live on. Suddenly, without a warning letter or any chance to discuss the matter, you discover that your benefit has been stopped. You have no income at all. Why? Is it because you have been found guilty of not meeting the conditions of the jobseeker's allowance? No. It is because a junior, relatively untrained employment officer wonders whether you are actively seeking work, has a doubt and refers your case to the adjudication officer for decision.
There is nothing wrong with that. The case reviews and spot checks are entirely welcome. However, your benefit will stop not when you are found guilty by the adjudication officer but from the moment the junior employment officer has a doubt and sends your case for review. We assume that it is an honest doubt but the junior employment officer has a target of referrals to meet and perhaps he has not yet met it. So he sends your file along for review and the moment that he does so your benefit is immediately stopped. You are fined in advance of your case being heard. You are punished

415
before you are found guilty. As a result of a doubt—not a decision—you have nothing to live on. As a result of a doubt your entire income is taken away.
Why do we object to the proposal, and why have we tabled this amendment in order to correct it? First, on the ground of simple, natural justice. So far as I am aware, in no other walk of life are you punished in advance of being found guilty. Even if you are suspected of a major offence at work, you are suspended on full pay. But not if you are unemployed living day to day. In that case, your benefit is taken away while your case is merely being investigated. It is assumed that you are guilty of the offence that has yet to be proved.
The Minister has said repeatedly, including last night, that only if a jobseeker is meeting the conditions of entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance and is available or actively seeking work is he entitled to the benefit. We agree, but until the offence is established, how do we know whether the jobseeker is or is not meeting the conditions of entitlement? The Minister has always argued—and I hope that he does not do so again today—as though a doubt is the same as a decision; that to suspect someone is a good enough reason for finding him guilty and denying him benefit. I am not talking about people who have never received JSA but about those who are currently in receipt of it and whose benefit will be stopped because of a doubt.
When the Minister replies, I beg your Lordships to ask themselves one question. Is a doubt in the mind of a junior employment officer the same, and should therefore be visited with the same penalty, as a decision made by the adjudication officer? If a doubt is different from a decision, why is benefit stopped in advance of being found guilty?
Therefore, our first argument is that, in all fairness, punishment should follow the offence being established. The second argument is that if one does not follow that route the consequences for those on JSA will be devastating. A jobseeker is living on barely £5 per day. He is often hungry and scruffy because that £5 per day must pay for all his food, his clothing, cleaning materials, heat, light and fuel bills. It must cover his costs for travelling to interviews, train fares, tube fares, newspapers to see the job advertisements, postage and phonecards. After all, if he attends two interviews in one day, the tube fare will take £4 of his £5 for that day. That £5 is all that stands between him and utter destitution. And yet, because of a doubt, not a decision, that £5 is taken away while the doubt is investigated.
From whom is it taken? It is not taken from the clever people, the real fiddlers, because they will always be able to manipulate the system. It will be taken away from those, for example, for whom English is a second language or from those suffering from a mild learning difficulty or from those who are inadequate or incompetent. What then, my Lords? That jobseeker cannot buy food and he certainly cannot keep himself clean. He cannot afford to travel to look for work. We shall have put him on the streets and we shall have trapped him on the streets. As a result, he will live off the streets, not by starving quietly but by begging, thieving, shoplifting, prostitution or selling drugs. We
416
shall have outlawed him because if he cannot live on £5 a day within the law he will find a means of living outside the law.
We have taken that £5 away not because he is guilty but because we think he may be guilty. We do not know whether he is, or is not, but he will have been fined all the same. If we are not willing to continue that £5 a day on grounds of justice, should we not do so on grounds of decency towards him and as a form of social insurance for us?
None of us wants fraud or for people to cheat the system. But, for heaven's sake, let us ensure that when we punish someone by taking away his benefit—the £5 per day which stands between him and destitution—that is done because we know that he is guilty of the offence. Surely we should not treat people who are awaiting a decision as though that decision has already been taken.
Finally, perhaps I may quote David Hunt, the former Secretary of State for Employment. He was asked to regard an employer suspected of discrimination at work to be presumed guilty but, quite rightly, he refused because, he said,
"It is fundamentally inconsistent with justice and the rule of law in this area. The idea that a person on proof of certain facts should be presumed guilty unless he can prove himself innocent appears hard to reconcile with natural justice".
David Hunt was right. He was right to protect employers in that way. I ask your Lordships today to similarly protect the unemployed. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the debate on this issue has been somewhat prolonged because there has been quite a deep culture clash between the two sides of the House. We are acting on two quite different sets of theoretical assumptions and we have not yet succeeded in finding a common language in which to discuss them.
To us it appears perfectly simple that when someone is accused of not meeting the conditions necessary for entitlement to benefit he should be innocent until proved guilty. He should not be disentitled to benefit until there has been a hearing before the adjudication officer. For us, that rests on a concept of benefit as an entitlement, a civil right; something which, if you meet the means-tested conditions, you enjoy until it can be proved that there is a good reason for taking it away. It is a right of citizenship.
Clearly the Minister does not see it in that way. A great deal of time has been spent on trying to find out how or why the Minister does not see it in that way. He thinks that it is perfectly justifiable to disentitle people to benefit before the proof of the offence. In fact, I believe that he thinks that the word "offence" is misplaced. If he thinks that to be so, I should be grateful if he will explain why, because that may help our understanding.
He also seems to believe that the accusation of not meeting the conditions amounts to proof. As near as I can follow what the Minister said, that seems to rest on two premises on his side. The first is the premise which he stated clearly last night; namely, that JSA is a conditional benefit. That is clear enough; it is. Secondly,

417
the Minister seems to have reversed the burden of proof. He seems to be arguing now that you should not receive JSA until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you meet all the conditions necessary for entitlement rather than that you should continue to receive the benefit until he can prove that you do not meet those conditions. That is a major change and I should like to know why it has happened.
It is likely to cause grave hardship. If you take all benefit away from people, possibly wrongly and on a ground which turns out on appeal to be unjustified, at the very best you plunge those people deep into debt and make it more difficult for them to clamber back into earning a lawful living. That is a great pity.
There is a danger here that we may be looking at, in effect, the end of the Beveridge principle of the safety net and at the end of an assumption that people have an entitlement to protection through the benefit system unless a specific offence can be proved against them. We now have an idea that you have to jump through a whole series of hoops before you can enter the benefit system. I do not know why that change has been made and I should be grateful for an explanation. I have heard no reason for it. Not only will it cause grave hardship but it will also generate expense. A few moments ago at Question Time we heard that the Minister does not yet know what those costs will be. Until he knows, at least on grounds of financial caution, perhaps he should go a little easy on disentitlement.
But there is another major issue behind this which was raised 21 years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; that is, how far the field of social security is subject to the rule of law. It is a field in which the broad concepts of common law have a slightly more tenuous hold before tribunals than they sometimes do in the courts. It is a field in which the administration of the law depends very heavily on statute and regulation. Therefore, it is one in which it is difficult for the law to exercise sufficient control over the power of the Executive. As that affects people's welfare so deeply, that is a matter for regret.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, giving judgment in the social fund case in 1990, commented that it was impossible to believe that Parliament had done anything so arbitrary, save that Parliament had. That is a comment which can very often be made in the field of social security. It is because we believe in terms of Parliament controlling the Executive, and as we have been told many times that it should, that that should be put under control. We want social security governed more than it is now by the concepts of the rule of law. 'That is my strongest reason for supporting the amendment.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I think that the amendment is a classic example of what your Lordships' House can do. It is about defending people's basic rights. If the Government really want support throughout the country, I feel that the Minister must accept the amendment. That will also give the Government an opportunity to show that they care about the less privileged members of society. I strongly support the amendment in the best traditions of the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before I turn to the amendment now before the House, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to refer back to a debate that we had on the first day of Committee, Thursday, 20th April. When responding to the amendment moved by the noble Earl and supported by the noble Baroness which invited me to defer the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance until April 1997, I explained that we were closely monitoring the progress towards implementation and that we had commissioned an external review of the work being carried out on implementation of JSA. I then added:
"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".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 590.]
As I have made clear on a number of occasions, the Bill aims to help people into jobs, to improve services to people while they are unemployed and to achieve better value for the taxpayer. The Government's priority is to introduce the allowance successfully through the network of 1,200 jobcentres for unemployed people throughout the country. That is a large and complex undertaking. It involves development of two substantial new computer systems and very large-scale training programmes. As I said, we have kept the project under close review and substantial progress has been made. But we have now concluded that sticking to the planned date would entail risks to the smooth delivery of services to unemployed people.
Therefore, the Government have decided that the jobseeker's allowance should be introduced in October 1996. However, that does not affect our policy. The transitional arrangements for JSA will be such that the duration of an unemployed claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit will, from April 1996, be the same as it would have been had JSA been introduced on that date. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the plans for the introduction of the back-to-work bonus are unaffected. The bonus will be introduced as planned in October 1996. As I said on 20th April, one of the objectives of the jobseeker's allowance is to improve the service that we offer to jobseekers. We do not intend to put that at risk. I hope that your Lordships do not mind me making clear at the beginning of today the decision that we have come to on that important issue.
I turn now to the amendment before us which concerns an area which we have debated on a number of occasions. In fact the amendment is couched in very similar terms to one which the noble Baroness tabled at the recommitment of Clause 6. I have to disappoint both her and the noble Earl by saying that I have not had a change of heart since then.
Where there is a doubt over whether someone is entitled to JSA—whether he is a jobseeker—then the Employment Service must refer this for decision to an adjudication officer, and payment of benefit cannot be made on the normal basis. If it appears that a claimant has not been available for work in the previous weeks, he should not receive benefit for that period as if he had actually been available. It really seems that the noble

419
Baroness has accepted that principle in her amendment in providing for reduced payments in those circumstances.
However, unlike the noble Baroness, we do not accept that everyone should have immediate and automatic access to benefit while the adjudication decision is reached. Jobseeker's allowance is a benefit which is intended to support claimants who are available for work. That is a central condition and if the claimant has not shown that he is, he cannot expect to receive the allowance just as if nothing had changed.
The great majority of claimants have no difficulty in meeting the basic conditions. In cases where the Employment Service makes a referral for a decision, 80 per cent. are subsequently found to be not meeting the conditions by the adjudication officer. In those circumstances, I do not see a case for moving to automatic payments for all claimants throughout the period of adjudication, as the noble Baroness wishes. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am much obliged. I have a question to ask the Minister on a matter to which he referred regarding the first Committee day. At that stage, on 20th April, the Minister told us that work was being done to ensure the implementation of the Bill on 26th April 1996. We now understand that there may be a delay of six months. In the light of the fact that the Government obviously do not have plans for the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance—and, therefore, it could be subject to further delay—could the Minister be persuaded to reconsider introducing such a draconian measure as removing all benefit in the case of someone where there is doubt about his satisfying the conditions before bringing in the jobseeker's allowance, so that we know that the system is working well, given that we are refusing all income to a substantial number of our fellow citizens and giving them no redress in that respect?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the matter in front of us will actually come into place when the jobseeker's allowance itself comes into effect. As I told the House a few minutes ago, that will now be in October 1996. At that stage we hope to introduce all the parts of the jobseeker's allowance that we have been discussing. Indeed, I mentioned the position as regards the transitional arrangements for the duration of unemployment claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit which will change from April 1996. However, the other parts—namely, the proposals that we have outlined to the House over some days—will come into effect in October 1996.
I was just about to deal with the point raised by the noble Earl. As he elegantly says, I believe that there is a problem as regards language. I do not consider that we are actually looking at whether or not an offence has been created; we are actually looking at whether or not someone is entitled to receive that particular benefit. If someone is actively seeking work or if he is available for work, those are the basic entitlements which enable him to claim jobseeker's allowance. That is a difference of language which I am afraid runs through much of our
420
discussions. However, there are other issues in respect of which we are looking at "offences" and where we are looking to impose a sanction. The way in which we deal with such circumstances is quite different from the way in which we deal with the question of entitlement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister explain what he means by the word "entitlement"? If he does so, it might get us a little further in the proceedings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have gone into the question of entitlement in some detail. Quite clearly, so far as concerns receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance, what income a person has comes into the matter. However, as regards the employment conditions, entitlement depends on availability for work, which we have defined in Clause 6, and on actively seeking work, as set out in Clause 7. Those are the important considerations. Before a person's claim can be validated, he has to show that he is actively seeking work and that he is available for work. I believe that those are two very clear preconditions to someone receiving jobseeker's allowance.
However, our proposals—for those of your Lordships who have followed them—will protect claimants in vulnerable groups by making hardship payments from the outset to those who show hardship. That includes all claimants who have children, and cases where the claimant or partner is sick or disabled, pregnant, or has caring responsibilities. Other claimants will receive hardship payments after two weeks. We believe that that is a reasonable period in the case of childless, healthy claimants. We have been over the issue on a number of occasions before, both in Committee and indeed on recommitment. The arguments on both sides have not changed much. I fear that there is still a gulf between us. Our view remains quite firmly that, until entitlement is established, it would be quite wrong to pay benefit. I realise that the parties opposite do not accept that, but I am afraid that I cannot agree to the amendment. I hope that those concerned will agree to withdraw it. However, if they do not do so, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before he sits down, I have a question for the Minister. Is the speech that he has just made perhaps related to a different concept of burden of proof from that which my noble friend put forward? Is it not the case that the Minister has spoken of it appearing that someone is not available for work? Therefore, surely that person would not be able to make a prima facie case. It may be that someone can make a prima facie case that he meets the conditions but the employment officer says that he still has a doubt. It is surely to the second case that my noble friend's amendment is addressed. Where he can make a prima facie case that there is still a doubt which must go to appeal, surely in those circumstances he or she is entitled to retain the benefit or allowance in the interim.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to that point. What we are talking about is the doubt that exists in the mind

421
of the Employment Service officer about a case. He must then refer it to an adjudication officer. As I think we discussed at some length yesterday, the situation is that the Employment Service official who makes the reference has to be sure that there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking, or willing to accept work. That is the situation. As I think I mentioned earlier, something like 80 per cent. of the cases are found by the adjudication officer not to meet these conditions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I thank too those who have come to listen to the debate on a Bill which is often technical. We appreciate that. We have two questions to decide this afternoon. The first—to repeat the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—is: does an accusation of an employment officer equal proof? Is there a difference between accusation and proof? If there is a difference between accusation and proof, the penalty should not start until proof has been established.
The Minister made much of the point that 80 per cent. of referrals by the employment officer go to the adjudication officer and are upheld. That may be the case but the argument would apply even if 95 per cent. were upheld. One is still innocent until proved guilty. However, the Minister conceded that 20 per cent. of those cases are found to be valid at adjudication. That is one in five, 20 per cent. What is more—the Minister did not tell us this —185,000 of the cases that then go to appeal are found to be valid. That is not some trivial number. The chief adjudication officer has said that in 92 per cent. of all cases which go to appeal he is uneasy about the quality of evidence.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening in her excellent speech. Does it not occur to her that the whole of her argument is based on a false premise; namely, that the rules of criminal law, which are riot in issue in this case, should apply to a case where someone is entering an office and asking for money? He must establish something before he obtains that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It allows me to clarify a point which perhaps I failed to do when I introduced the amendment; namely, that we are not for the most part talking about people who are seeking to establish an entitlement to JSA which they have never had. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, would, I think, be broadly correct if that were the situation. However, we are not talking about that situation. We are talking about someone whose entitlement has already been established and who is already receiving the benefit. Then, because an untrained employment officer thinks there may be a possibility that the claimant is not actively seeking work, that benefit is denied to the claimant, perhaps without any discussion and without a warning letter. The employment officer denies the claimant the benefit while that doubt is being explored.
422
On that basis I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will accept that he is on our side because here an existing entitlement is being withheld on grounds of a doubt. 'Therefore, the principles of criminal law should surely follow. It was noticeable that the Minister, in reply to my amendment, said all the time, "He appears not to have been available". The Minister chose his words carefully. He said that the claimant who is already in receipt of JSA "appears not to have been available". He did not say that the claimant was not available for work but that he appeared not to be available. What we are saying is that until it is established that the claimant is not available for work, he should have the benefit of the principle of British justice, which is that one is innocent until proven guilty.
That is the first question we have to answer today. Is a doubt the same as a determination? Is an accusation the same as proof? The second question is: on the basis of that doubt is it fair to take away someone's livelihood—someone who is already in receipt of JSA—of just £5 a day and send him into destitution on a doubt? Can we do that? Can we send someone into destitution on a doubt? I was wrong when I said that there were two questions facing us— one, whether an accusation is the same as proof and the other about destitution. There is a third. Your Lordships regularly, as a House, protect the rights of the most marginal and most vulnerable against the Executive when necessary and when that is correct. In my view this is very much a House of Lords question. I hope that your Lordships will take that course today. I ask the opinion of the House.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to ask her a question. In the case of the 80 per cent. who are proved to be ineligible, what are the practicalities of trying to reclaim this money from them when they have been paid during the period until they have been proved to be non-eligible? How is this money to be recovered because it is money belonging to every taxpayer in the country?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. The benefit stops from the moment that an offence has been established and not before. That is surely what we all accept, is it not? We do not punish in advance of the offence being established; we punish at the point that the offence is established. That is what we would achieve today. As I say, if we support this amendment we will be saying that punishment follows the establishment of an offence. If noble Lords do not support the amendment, what this House will be saying is that on a mere doubt we can deny someone a livelihood of £5 a day that stands between him and destitution. I do not think that we should do that on a doubt but only if we are sure of our facts. That is why we have an adjudication system. On the theory we are discussing we do not even need an adjudication system; the doubt of an employment officer would be enough. It is because it

423
is not enough and because we make that distinction that I ask your Lordships to give your views on the amendment.
3.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jay, L.

Avebury, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bridges, L.

Kennet, L.

Brookes, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Listowel, E.

Chapple, L.

Lockwood, B.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Crook, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Moyne, L.

Ezra, L.

Nelson, E.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Northbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Palmer, L.

Geraint, L.

Parry, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Healey, L.

Russell, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Scanlon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howell, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Hylton, L.

Stallard, L.

433

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Whaddon, L.

Tope, L.

White, B.

Tordoff, L.

Wigoder, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

Varley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Addison, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harmsworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hogg, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Hood, V.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blake, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Boardman, L.

Knollys, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Burnham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McConnell, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lora Chancellor]

Chesham, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleridge, L.

Middleton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Morris, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northbrook, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northesk, E.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Dormer, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dudley, E.

Orkney, E.

Dundonald, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Pym, L.

Foley, L.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Radnor, E.

Gage, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Geddes, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gray, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Haig, E.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Sharples, B.

434

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Torphichen, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Trumpington, B.

Slim, V.

Ullswater, V.

Stewartby L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Westbury, L.

Strange, B.

Wolfson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wynford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Young, B.

Terrington, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.47 p.m.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Availability for employment]:
[Amendment No. 23A not moved.]
Earl Russell: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 deals with training. It attempts to tighten the definition of training by adding the word "suitable" training. It does not require people to make themselves available for absolutely any old form of training: it has to be suitable.
Some of your Lordships may remember Mr. Wackford Squeers in Nicholas Nickleby who used to greet the members of his class with the words: "w-i-n-d-e-r, winder, a casement. Go and clean it!" In Dotheboys Hall that passed under the name of education. I do not wish to suggest that anything as extreme as that has happened in training, but the law has lo provide for contingencies. If training is to have the usefulness we would all like it to have, it must be suitable. There is an actual case of employment training in carpentry where the organisers carried on with the course, although they were not able to afford any wood.
The purpose of training—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend and I are having some difficulty. The noble Earl is speaking to Amendment No. 24 and the word "suitable" which he wishes to insert would come not before "training" but before the words "employed earner's employment". I know how careful the noble Earl is, but I wonder whether he has picked up the wrong piece of paper. I marvel at the way he manages to juggle all the amendments and to speak almost without notes. I am quite envious of him. But in this case, while I understand the point he is making, I believe that he is addressing it to the wrong place.
Amendment No. 24 states:
"Page 5, line 12, after ("any") insert ("suitable").
The subsection would then read,
"For the purposes of this Act, a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any suitable employed earner's employment".
I believe that the noble Earl is speaking about training. I hope that that is helpful.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. As he may have observed, I had not merely picked up the wrong piece of paper, I had not had time to return to my place to pick up any piece of paper. Although I would have begged to move the amendment, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has the right piece of paper.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 12, after ("any") insert ("suitable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise on both our behalves. However, I was locked outside the Chamber at the time.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, surely the right procedure is for the Question to be put and for the noble Baroness to say her piece.
Noble Lords: No.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moving the amendment, or has it been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I must apologise for whatever confusion my noble friend and I have managed to put the House in. However, I am glad to say that I believe I rose to my feet at the right moment. I am learning slowly.
The purpose of the amendment is to follow up a significant point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, during the Committee stage. Noble Lords will recall that we had considerable discussion about the definition of the words "available for work". In seeking to meet that condition, we were concerned that a claimant might find a job proposed to him that was unsuitable in terms of his capabilities, training, experience and possibly even his age and physical and mental condition.
The introduction of "suitable" before "employment" ensures that when a jobseeker fulfils the conditions of a jobseeker's allowance—and if he fails to fulfil those conditions he may lose benefit for a period of several weeks or even months—the employment officer would be obliged to consider carefully whether the employment was suitable for the claimant.
One of the arguments for the Bill which Ministers advance is that the jobseeker's agreement is a step towards a closer fit between claimants and the jobs which they might be sent to fill. That is a perfectly proper ambition. But as Members of this House, we are concerned that the fairly draconian steps which can be taken vis-à-vis a claimant's entitlement should not fall at the first fence because the employment officer has suggested as a condition that the jobseeker seeks jobs which simply do not suit his or her capabilities, talents and, for that matter, experience.
Noble Lords on this side of the House believed that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was extremely sound. The amendment lays upon the employment officer some responsibility to reach his side of the agreement so that agreement is genuinely mutual and not another word for a form of coercion. Therefore we picked up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and embodied them in an amendment. We sought to reach the noble Lord to discuss the matter with him, but for various reasons were unable to do so.
I add one further point. Although the word "suitable" is tiny, it helps to give the Bill some validity in terms of meeting the needs of both sides—the employment officer and the claimant. Concern has been expressed again and again on this side of the

427
House that the agreement might be little more than a set of conditions which have to be satisfied without considering the specific human characteristics of the person before the employment officer. We wish to make it a genuine agreement. We genuinely wish to remove elements of unacceptable coercion. Therefore I strongly commend this small word to the House. Both sides will then have to meet on a reasonable basis without the scales being heavily weighted in one direction or the other. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I remind the House—in particular the supporters of the Government on the Benches behind the Ministers—that the agreement is between three parties rather than two: the Employment Service, the claimant and the person who will employ him. No employer wishes to have an unsuitable person foisted on him. If one is considering satisfactory employment lasting for any length of time, all three parties have to be satisfied that it is suitable, not least the employer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. When we discussed the recommitted Clause 6, we had a little amusement at the possibility of a Member of the Government Front Bench, perhaps after the next general election, being offered a job as a Labour Party fund-raiser. However, the amendment raises a serious point. There is a widespread view—I confess that I share it—that the Bill is intended to get people off the unemployment statistics and into employment —perhaps any employment—so that they can no longer be classified as unemployed, and, even more important from the Government's point of view, off contributory benefit which they can have as of right.
During discussion of the Bill, the Ministers' responses to a range of amendments have done little to allay that fear. There may well be mismatches which are almost as great as the example of a former government Front Bencher being offered a Labour Party job. The discussions yesterday made it clear that there will be pressure on employment officers and others concerned with the administration of this legislation to get people into employment and off benefit.
Once the legislation gets down to the grass-roots operational level, so to speak, that pressure may well be translated as getting the applicants into any job. Unemployed people have real fears that they could be forced into unsuitable work—and work, moreover, which would make it much more difficult for them later to get back into the type of work for which they have skills or training. The unemployed insurance or bank clerk—there are many more of those than there used to be since financial services are no longer a secure employment area—could well feel that a stint at stacking shelves in a supermarket might mean that he or she will not be able to get a job in financial services again. Future employers would not be impressed by the job record, and openings in their chosen field could well be blocked off. Moreover,
428
people used to desk work or white collar employment may not be physically suitable for work requiring manual effort.
These are genuine fears of people cast out of employment through no fault of their own but simply because of reorganisation, restructuring, introduction of new technology, increased competitiveness, and so on. Those people are the victims of government policy. It is the Government who have encouraged companies to become ever more competitive, to cut back on staff, to introduce job flexibility, and so on. That has introduced widespread insecurity in the employment field, even among people who are in employment.
If what the Minister said is to be given credence, let him accept the amendment and spell out on the face of the Bill that people will not be forced against their will into unsuitable employment or risk losing the very low level of benefit which will be available to them as a jobseeker's allowance. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment. I hope to hear that the Minister agrees to accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I regard this as merely a drafting matter. However, the provision has one or two other minor advantages of substance. I hope that I may be forgiven for repeating a thought that entered my mind at an earlier stage of the Bill: that anyone reading this subsection would, unless one reads it exceedingly carefully, think that it was referring to pinching someone else's job.
The introduction of the word "suitable" would, to a great extent, dispose of that concept even if it is regarded as not being frivolous. The expression "employed earner's employment" is taken from the benefits Act and it is right that in order to preserve the continuity of statutory phraseology it should again be used in this Bill. However, we must be careful how we use it so that it does not give a misleading impression.
Apart from clarity in drafting—and from that aspect the amendment has a great deal to commend it—I suggest that from the Government's viewpoint it has the positive advantage that "suitable" is a word of limitation. It benefits not only the person applying for the jobseeker's allowance, but it limits the well-known expression "employed earner's employment". So from the Government's point of view of naturally wishing to control the circumstances in which the jobseeker's allowance is awarded, as well as clarifying the position for the person employed, the word "suitable" should be inserted. It can do no harm. If it provides clarification and, as I suggest, "suitable" is a word of limitation, then the amendment could well be accepted.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton is right that the amendment limits the Bill in the way that he suggests. However, it worries me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there are three parties. Therefore, who is to

429
decide who is suitable? Is it the potential job applicant? Is it the potential employer or is it the official in the Department of Employment?
Lord Renton: My Lords, although it is not the Committee stage perhaps I am in order in offering my noble friend an immediate answer to the problem which he raised. The word "suitable" in the context in which my noble friend and I suggest it should be used here means "suitable in the light of the other provisions of the Bill". That is plain enough.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the background to the amendment, which covers important matters of real interest to your Lordships, as our debate has shown.
As Clause 6 makes clear, taking its cue from existing case law, jobseekers have to be available for any employment in order to receive JSA. I have said repeatedly why this is so central to the effective functioning of JSA as a labour market allowance. The first priority of jobseekers must be to make every effort to find work as quickly as possible. That is why it is vital that jobseekers are open to as many job opportunities as possible.
Both the Employment Service and jobseekers have a role in ensuring that no opportunities are closed off to the jobseeker. Defining "availability" as the willingness and ability to take up any suitable employment would be detrimental. It is very difficult for an individual to predict in the absence of a specific offer whether a job would be "suitable" or not. Some people might well decide rather arbitrarily and without proper knowledge that particular jobs were "unsuitable" and hence not make themselves available for them. Surely that is wrong. The labour market is wide, flexible and constantly changing. We want to avoid the rigidities of the past and to encourage jobseekers to think broadly about their potential and abilities. But I should say straight away that there is no question of the Employment Service forcing people into unsuitable jobs.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Employment Service cannot in any way compel an employer to take someone on. The Employment Service's wish is to place people in employment. If the service acquires the reputation of continuously offering people who are wholly unsuitable, it will degrade its reputation and reduce its efficacy in putting people into work.
I should now like to explain some of the safeguards in the system. There are three features of which I should particularly like to remind your Lordships. I wish to talk briefly about restricted availability.
First, as I have emphasised several times before, and as Clause 6 makes clear, we will be allowing restrictions for certain groups as part of the availability condition. We intend to provide that certain groups will be able to restrict their availability, for example, on grounds of mental or physical condition, religious conviction or because a person is caring for another
430
person. The regulations will allow certain people to restrict their availability to what is in effect a suitable range of work.
Moreover regulations will provide that in any week a claimant who does not wish to make himself available at all times may limit his availability to a minimum of 40 hours. He may agree any pattern of 40 hours across the week provided he retains reasonable prospects of securing work. Jobseekers will also be able to restrict their availability in other ways (for example, in terms of location or type of work) again provided that they retain reasonable prospects of securing employment.
I now wish to talk about refusal of employment; but before coming to my second point, I should perhaps just emphasise to your Lordships; that it would be very difficult to come to a practical and workable definition of what would constitute a person's availability for suitable employment. I wish to focus on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. The question of availability concerns whether jobseekers are able and willing to take up a job, not whether they actually do so. The best way to protect the jobseeker from being obliged to take an inappropriate job is through the rules on the sanctions for refusal of employment. Under JSA, as now, a person will not receive a sanction for refusing an offer of a job if he has good cause for doing so.
If a jobseeker has good reasons for not accepting an offer of a vacancy, those reasons will be put to the adjudication officer who will consider whether the jobseeker had good cause for his refusal. In most instances, if a job was unsuitable the employment officer would simply not refer the claimant to the vacancy at all. I wish to return to a point which I made on a number of previous occasions—that it is in the inherent characteristics of the changes to the system that we propose that a long-term relationship is built up between the jobseeker and the employment officer. They can and will talk to each other and discuss items such as what they are looking for and how the jobsearch will proceed.
However, if the employment officer presented a job which the jobseeker turned down, and then on reflection the employment officer came round to the jobseeker's point of view, the matter would go no further. It is only if the employment officer concludes that the jobseeker has not shown good cause for refusal that the matter is then put to the adjudication officer. He will independently consider whether the jobseeker had good cause for that refusal.
In short, if there were grounds which meant that it was unreasonable for the jobseeker to apply for the job—for example, because of the jobseeker's level of skill, because of any mental or physical condition, because of caring responsibilities—then the adjudication officer may well consider that he had good cause.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about employment on trial. We recognise that people may be nervous about taking jobs which are new or unfamiliar to them. That is the kind of point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred. The

431
"employment on trial" rule addresses that fear. It ensures that certain unemployed people will not receive a benefit sanction if they give up their work in certain conditions. At present, employment on trial is open to those who have been unemployed for 26 weeks and who leave a job having tried it for a minimum period. Under JSA, the employment on trial provisions will be extended to those unemployed for 13 weeks or more.
I have deliberately spent a little time on this matter, but I hope that my having set out our approach in this way will reassure the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply but remain somewhat unpersuaded by it. It seemed to me to be very much the kind of answer which the Civil Service might provide, but I wish to draw to his attention two real anxieties. Employment officers will do their best to meet the spirit of the Bill, if it is enacted. Therefore, the likelihood is that an employment officer will do everything in his power to submit the name of the jobseeker for a range of jobs which he might be able to do but which might well fall short of the definition of "suitable employment". Perhaps I may give two examples from different aspects of the field.
First, the taxpayer in this country has sunk into the education of a number of highly qualified people amounts as high as a quarter of a million pounds. That is what it roughly costs to train a medical doctor. There is range after range of qualifications that have been financed by the taxpayers of this country. Without the word "suitable", a person might be submitted for far lesser jobs, in which his qualifications are not necessary and not useful.
I am also concerned about the failure to protect the employment officer should he decide to wait in order to put forward somebody's name for a job that would be more suitable, given that person's qualifications. In the past couple of years we have seen a rising level of unemployment among skilled and qualified people. By giving the employment officer so little discretion to decide whether somebody is suitable for a job we encourage him to submit the names of people in whom the investment has been very large, rather than waiting to see whether there is more suitable employment for them.
My second anxiety arises from the fact that without the word "suitable" we are in effect weighting the scales too far, in the triangle to which my noble friend referred of employment officer, claimant and employer, in the direction of the employment officer. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, this amendment qualifies the powers of the employment officer. That is the only person whose power is qualified by the addition of the word "suitable". In my view the scales are being tipped too far against the claimant—and many claimants will be sincere and genuine people—unless the claimant has the right to discuss in effect what employment would be suitable, given his particular qualifications.
432
As somebody who, all my life long, has been on the opposite Benches to those of the Conservative Party, I have respected the sense that they have always had of profound fairness. I fear that this aspect of the Bill departs from that principle of fairness. I therefore must seek the opinion of the House.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Con tents, 150.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert ("and in particular, a person shall be entitled to refuse to make himself available for employment where the average weekly remuneration would produce an income less than the amount of means-tested benefits to which he is entitled.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. This amendment would protect the jobseeker from being required to accept a job that pays below JSA or the old income support rates. Why is that? It is because that rate is a poverty rate and we do not believe that people should be required to make themselves poorer in consequence.
What is the old income support/JSA figure? It is less than £37 a week for someone under 25; it is £46.50 for a single person over 25; and £73 for an unemployed couple without children—in other words, £5 a day for each of them. Most of us cannot survive even on that sum—the existing jobseeker's allowance—without getting into debt, scrounging from friends and family who themselves may be unemployed or needing Social Fund loans. That is a poverty line. It is basic. One cannot live below it. Yet, with the abolition of the wages councils and with compulsory competitive tendering in public services, wages for the low paid are falling. There are now nearly 1.25 million people earning less than £2.50 an hour and a third of a million people earning less than £1.50 an hour, which is well below income support/JSA levels.
Also, more and more jobs are temporary and not, as we would understand it, full-time jobs. They comprise 25 hours, 28 hours or 30 hours. That is too many hours to combine with another job but not enough hours to float that person above income support level and off the poverty line. In consequence, 3 million people at the moment earn less than £57 a week and too little to pay national insurance contributions. About whom are we talking? We are talking about people who work in hairdressing, catering, shops, cleaning and retailing and those who are care assistants and work in old people's homes. Those low-paid people are weak, scattered, not organised in trades unions and are not any more protected by wages councils. They are in no position to defend themselves as wages are pressed down and down.
But, the Minister may argue, are not they at least pricing themselves into work by accepting such low rates of pay? On the contrary, since the abolition of the wages councils, over 18,000 jobs have been lost in the industries that the wages councils protected, while at the same time the pay for those jobs has fallen. Cutting wages does not create more jobs; it merely pays less for the same job.
Who are willing or able to afford to accept such jobs which now pay below income support levels? They are mostly women whose partners are in work and who are therefore above the poverty line. Because her partner is in full-time work, she can afford to take a low-paid job. As a household they are above the poverty line even though her pay as an individual may be below it. So this amendment does not affect them.
But it is a very different situation for someone who is currently on jobseeker's allowance, either as a single person or as one of an unemployed couple, who is required by an employment officer to take a job which brings his or her income down below that poverty line, below income support and below jobseeker's allowance. For an unemployed couple that figure would be £73 a week. Let us suppose that the man in that partnership is offered a job stacking shelves at £2.20 an hour—now a perfectly standard wage for stacking shelves—for 30 hours a week. It is not a part-time job but a semi-full-time job. How much would 30 hours a week at £2.20 an hour bring in? It is £66 a week, which is some £7 a week less than the poverty line JSA figure of £73 a week that the couple needs to live on. That is before he pays national insurance and before any travel to work costs are taken into account. If that person is required to take that job at £66 a week, which pays less than JSA, then JSA or income support is no longer, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, a safety net below which no one needs fall. Instead, it has become a trapdoor through which the lowest paid fall.
Employers will be able to fix wages at whatever level they will. Why stop at £2.20? Why not pay £1.75, £1.50 or £1.25 an hour? They know as employers that they will have the support of the employment officer acting, if one likes, as a sergeant-major, requiring people to take jobs which make them poorer than if they were to remain on benefit. How will they do that? The employment officer will say, "Take this job which pays less than JSA or you will lose JSA altogether." That is not a labour market. That is forced labour, at exploitative pay. What will be the consequence? If the couple have no children and one is required to take that 30-hour £66 a week job, they will be forced to live below the poverty line. They will get into debt, scrounge or go into fraudulent work—the black market or black economy work.
However, if they have children they will receive family credit, which is a top-up in-work benefit for those with children. The result is that over the past four years the cost of the family credit benefit has soared. It has more than doubled. That is not because people have had more children but because employers have cut wages, knowing that the state will take the strain and top them up again. The employer has exported his wage bill to
436
the rest of us as taxpayers. Why should we permit that? He has not done it more widely simply because people without children have been able to refuse jobs that pay less than income support. As a result, income support has effectively operated as a minimum wage below which wages may not fall.
Unless we accept the amendment, income support will not act as a minimum wage in the future. If, in the future, anyone on JSA can be required to take any job, irrespective of whether it pays above or below income support levels, then that floor of decency, that safety net for us as citizens and taxpayers, has gone. Employers can pay what they want and either "you" as a jobseeker or "we" as taxpayers, will subsidise and subscribe to an unlimited wage subsidy for employers.
The result is again a "Morton's fork". If a couple have no children, they are required to live below the poverty line; if they have children, we as taxpayers will subsidise the employer's wage bill to take them above the poverty line. Below the poverty line they are in destitution; above the poverty line, with children, we subsidise the employer. Neither of those alternatives is fair or acceptable. How do we stop it? By saying that no one should be required to take a job that pays below income support levels; that no one should be made poorer in work than on benefit—the level of benefit itself being our poverty line. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I offer my support to both the amendments, which are important. They would put a floor underneath the wage at which people may be required to work, and would put it at the level of income support. Putting people below that level causes considerable hardship. While I appreciate that that is not necessarily regarded in all quarters as conclusive, nevertheless it is not negligible.
For example, I am aware of a case of somebody discussing his job plans with his employment officer, who worked out a budget which covered his actual outgoings—council tax, mortgage and so forth. Repossessions are not cheap, either for the country or for those who suffer them. The claimant then sent in that calculation, with his employment officer's approval, and was deprived of benefit on the ground that he had placed unreasonable restrictions on his availability. That does not seem to me to be a practical way of going on. There must be a floor underneath the wages at which people can be required to work, especially where we do not really have a free market; where the labourer cannot bargain because he is not given the freedom to do so. In particular, people should not be compelled to take jobs which pay commission only. I have known people quite well who are involved in looking for jobs in the part-time, deregulated labour market and they have come across jobs which no one in any civilised country should ever be compelled to take. There are limits.
I understand that that is not recognised as conclusive by all concerned, and we must therefore consider costs. I stress that I am always prepared to consider costs, but we must get them right. We have already heard reference today to the new book by Mr. Frank Field

437
reported in the papers last Saturday which estimated that 50 per cent, of our population were on means-tested benefit. I have had no time since Saturday to check that figure. What Mr. Field says must always be taken seriously and I regret to say that that figure is by no means self-evidently absurd. As far as I can check, about half of Mr. Field's figure results from people on means-tested, in-work benefits who are being subsidised by the state because the wages paid by the employer are too low. I am sure we all agree that there are circumstances in which that can properly be done, but there must be a check on it, otherwise the temptation on the employer to free-load on the state is irresistible.
If 25 per cent. of our population are being paid wages so low that the state has to subsidise them, then the state is taking on a financial burden in the face of which it ought to hesitate. For example, we know that the cost of housing benefit is causing considerable concern to the Chief Secretary, as well it might. He has not recognised the problems, although when he says that there is a problem, he is unquestionably right. Again, the cost of housing benefit is largely the result of wages which are too low to sustain people in the housing market in which they have to be if they are to be able to work at all. To a lesser extent one can say the same of council tax benefit and family credit. But the three of them together give rise to a burden which the state should not multiply unnecessarily. I entirely agree with the Minister that the interests of the taxpayer need considering. I do not think in this regard that they are being considered in a sensible way.
When we were in Committee I drew the Minister's attention to a Written Answer I was expecting about the fall in public revenues during the past financial year. It so happened last week that the Minister signed the Answer himself, so it will already have come to his attention and I thank him for it. He may have noticed that the biggest drop in revenues was in income tax. If I remember rightly, although I do not have the figure by me, it was a drop of 1.2 per cent.
The Minister has reminded us many times in the course of the passage of the Bill that we have more people in employment than we had a year ago. He conceded that we welcome that, as he does. But when we have more people in employment and less revenue in the form of income tax, we need an explanation. The most likely explanation—I should like to know what information there is to sustain or oppose this conjecture—is that it is the result of falling wages. If we pay people less wages, we pay less tax; we damage the state's tax base and put an increasing burden on the diminishing number of people who are still receiving a big enough income to pay large sums of tax.
The state therefore is shooting itself not only in the foot, but in both feet. It may claim that it is creating more jobs. Supposing it is; I am in favour of public spending to create more jobs, but we must be careful how we do it. For some projects of job creation the price can be too high. This is very likely one of them. If the state wants to create jobs, it could find cheaper ways of doing so.
438
Finally, when we discussed the hypothesis of creating jobs, I should like to recall the Minister's attention to the incident of Bottomley's list. This occurred during the debates on wages councils in 1990. Mr. Peter Bottomley asked the Government what the studies were that supported the contention that a floor under wages destroyed jobs. They gave him a Written Answer listing 26 studies. None of them proved the point and four argued directly for the opposite. The Government's case therefore rests on a shaky evidential foundation. To shoot oneself in both feet as a result of bad evidence is not clever.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on this extremely important amendment. My first point concerns the operation of a free market.
In a free market the price that is eventually set is one that balances supply and demand and therefore reflects the position of those two forces. Let me draw the attention of the House to what the Bill says. It contains what philosophers call "a prisoner's dilemma". The claimant is asked to say what is the lowest wage for which he would be willing to work. That refers to the documents circulated during the Committee stage of another place where the Minister of State indicated the kinds of question that would be asked in a jobsearch review. I understand that it is already part of the existing procedures.
One of those questions is, "What is the lowest amount of wages before stoppages that you will be willing to accept?" No similar question is asked the other way—such as, "What is the highest wage you would be willing to pay to get this job done?" As I understand it, if the claimant refuses to answer the question he may be in breach of the conditions of the jobseeker's agreement. If he does answer it, how does he do so? If he sets the figure too low his family and his relatives may suffer. If he sets it too high he will be regarded as having imposed an unreasonable condition on his availability for work.
That is not a free market but a coerced market in which one side is being asked to tie itself in advance by stating a condition which immediately changes the whole of the terms of a free market bargain and the other side is being required to say nothing at all. Even from the point of view of the philosophy espoused by many who believe in an unrestrained free market, it has to be said that this is a very strange piece of legislation indeed.
There is a second consideration I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention. It is one which has been very effectively advanced by my colleagues. It reflects the difficulty that will be thrown up, if this amendment is not passed, in trying to move to a reconstruction of the welfare state in which we put the emphasis on subsidising, not people to stay unemployed, but jobs to enable them to be employed. The case deployed by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend is that the route to that much more satisfactory kind of welfare state—one already being explored by a number of research centres and brains trusts —would effectively be barred by the sheer scale of the subsidy required from the state

439
unless there is some minimum level which employers need to pay in order to have a job filled. I believe that that is a very sensible route to follow. We need to get away from the culture of dependency to that of self-employment and employment in order to retain one's own self-respect.
If this amendment is not passed, effectively we shall make going in that direction so expensive for the taxpayer that we shall make it virtually impracticable. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend and the noble Baroness because I believe that the consequences of not passing this amendment are very large indeed. They are consequences which in effect bring us very close to a form of coercive labour.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall begin with a few words about the amendments themselves before going on to the substantive argument that lies behind the debate of the past few minutes.
Amendment No. 25 seems somewhat muddled. Its purpose seems to be to prevent people being penalised for not being available for work which would pay them less than their means-tested benefit entitlement. The wording of Amendment No. 31 is even more extraordinary. If I am reading it properly, the type of employment that a claimant may or may not refuse to seek is irrelevant. The expression "whether or not" means that whatever the claimant does or does not do, he is to be treated as actively seeking work. In other words, the amendment would appear to us to have the effect of enabling every JSA claimant to be treated as actively seeking work. I accept that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. Her intention is similar to that of Amendment No. 25, so that claimants could avoid seeking work which would pay them less than their means-tested benefit entitlement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not wish to bandy words. I know that the Minister understands the point of these amendments, but as regards Amendment No. 31,1 believe that his remarks and strictures would only be true if it said,
"whether or not he refuses to seek employment [and] where the average weekly remuneration".
That is clearly not the case. The amendment states,
"whether or not he refuses to seek employment",
which is then modified or constrained by the rest of the sentence,
"where the average weekly remuneration would produce an income less than the amount of means-tested benefits to which he is entitled".
The phrase,
"whether or not he refuses to seek employment"
is understood in the context of the "average weekly remuneration". It would not be so understood if there were either a comma or an "and" there.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I am not sure that I agree with the construction of the words on the page, but I do not want to make a point about that because it is important that we address the substantive argument which is why we are here this afternoon.
440
We are still very unclear exactly of the compass of these amendments. What exactly do they mean? Do they mean and refer to the amount of income-based JSA that the claimant receives while he is unemployed? That would have unfortunate consequences. I should remind the House that income-based JSA will include amounts to cover claimants' mortgage interest payments, just as income support does now. We have all heard of cases where claimants' benefit entitlement is hundreds of pounds a week because of this rule. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that claimants in this position should be able to refuse work which does not provide them with that sort of money? That really would enable them to remain on benefit forever. That is a matter she must deal with. Perhaps the noble Baroness means her amendments to refer to income-based JSA entitlement, but excluding mortgage interest relief.
I wish to go back and look at the reference to the level of remuneration. That appears not to take account of the in-work benefits such as family credit, which people can claim once they are in work. As my colleagues and I pointed out many times, family credit and other reforms of tax and benefits mean that virtually all claimants are better off in work.
But, regardless of the exact detail of what the amendments are supposed to refer to, I cannot accept them. They stipulate that the average weekly remuneration in the employment is to be taken into account. There may be no great difficulty in determining the probable average amount of weekly income. But do we take into account benefits in kind offered by the job? Do we include travel-to-work costs or child-minding fees? How can a jobseeker know about how such matters would affect his level of income before taking a job?
I pose the questions to make the point that it would be virtually impossible in practice, as well as wrong in principle, to make such a calculation on the basis of the level to which each individual jobseeker could restrict their availability indefinitely. That is why I am not going down some kind of spurious and hypothetical Dutch auction route which the noble Baroness has previously tried to tempt us with.
We believe that people should not hold out indefinitely for a given level of remuneration. On previous occasions we have talked about the permitted 13-week period and how, over time, if the jobseeker cannot find a job within that period restricted to his previous rate of remuneration and sphere of activities, the extent of the job search has to be widened. That is important in the context of the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the level of remuneration indicated in the relevant documentation. It shows where we are starting from.
Considerable play has been made about levels of remuneration, the number of jobs at a particular rate of pay and other jobs at other rates of pay. It is important, looking at the picture in the round, to identify which sort of jobs one is talking about; full-time, part-time and

441
so on. I have mentioned family credit. We have also indicated that we are proposing a pilot scheme in respect of single people and childless couples.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me. I am only addressing the fact that I believe the brief he is referring to does not take adequate note of the fact that the noble Baroness specifically distinguished between those families who were entitled to family credit and those who were not. Indeed, a large part of her remarks were devoted to that aspect. In all fairness to her, I should make that plain to the House. She did not pretend that certain families without children were entitled to family credit, but equally she did not pretend that those with children would not get family credit if they were driven to very low-paid jobs.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I would not wish to be unfair to anybody. However, I should remind your Lordships that Clause 6(5) enables a claimant with a usual occupation to restrict his availability during the permitted period. In determining the length of the permitted period, which can be up to 13 weeks, a number of matters will be taken into account. As we have discussed previously, these will include the claimant's skills and qualifications, and the length of time he had been engaged in his usual occupation. As I said, after the permitted period, he will not be expected to be immediately available for any rate of pay, but he will certainly need to start widening his horizons, since— quite honestly—there is no point in holding out indefinitely for a rate of pay that may no longer be realistically attainable. After six months, we would expect the jobseeker to place no restrictions concerned with the rate of pay. It is the case that two-thirds of those who lose their jobs are already back in work by that point.
Rates of pay are only directly relevant to Clause 7 for the purpose of the permitted period provisions in Clause 7(5). Claimants can confine their jobsearch to their accustomed rate of pay during the permitted period determined under Clause 6(5), and if they do so they will be treated as actively seeking employment.
Apart from that, Clause 7 simply requires a person to take such of the steps he can reasonably be expected to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment. There is no mention of pay in this; provided the claimant is taking steps that give him his best prospects of securing employment, the rate of pay is not of immediate relevance. I suggest that the noble Baroness is confusing availability for employment with the actively seeking test. Let me be quite clear. Provided that jobseekers remain available for any work within any restriction imposed, there is nothing to prevent them concentrating their search for work to highly paid jobs in the City, academia, local government or anywhere else, if the steps they are taking to do that give them their best prospects of securing work.
Two points have been raised which I should like to address directly. I turn first to that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who returned to a matter that we
442
debated at some length in Committee. I refer to commission-only jobs —that is, jobs which pay no salary and where the reward comes by commission. I suggest that in many cases the contractual nature of such employment would be self-employment. Jobseekers do not have to make themselves available for self-employment (although they may do so if they wish) nor will they face sanctions under Clause 18 for refusing self-employment. If the adjudication authorities took the view that a person had been offered "employment" even though the work in question consisted only of work that paid no salary, they might also take the view that the reason for refusal was not the level of remuneration but the nature of the employment in question and that the jobseeker therefore had good cause for refusing it.
The fact is that we are not aware of adjudicating authorities ever having had to consider such a case. That is because the Employment Service, while it agrees to display vacancies that offer commission only, instructs its staff that claimants should be warned to consider such vacancies carefully before applying for them. Staff do not refer claimants to such jobs against their wishes. Of course, some claimants would welcome the opportunity to work on that basis and many who do so earn substantial sums of money.
The other point raised related to forcing people into work which was some form of exploitation. As I explained on a previous occasion when we debated this matter, it is axiomatic that the way in which the Employment Service operates is reasonable. The Employment Service does not, for example, try to put people into jobs which would be illegal or where the job would in some way endanger them under the health and safety regulations. Over the course of a year, about 4 million people claim through the Employment Service and we cannot find any example since 1989 (during the period that the present rules have been in place) of the Employment Service placing people in work where it has been, essentially, an instrument of exploitation on behalf of the employer. Bearing in mind all that has been said, I must stress that we cannot find any examples of that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that it cannot be exploitation and that it cannot be unreasonable if it is just a matter of money? Is the noble Lord saying that if, after six months, the: jobseeker is sent somewhere, offered a job or presented with an opportunity by an employment officer and the only thing wrong with the job is not that it is illegal, but that it offers starvation wages that are way below the level of the jobseeker's allowance, that is perfectly reasonable and is not exploitation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I said earlier that I was not going to enter into a hypothetical Dutch auction because we had plenty of opportunities for that in Committee. I go back to the point that I made: very large numbers of people are dealt with by the Employment Service and we cannot find an example to back up the extreme hypothetical instances quoted by the Benches opposite.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, but that is because the noble Lord will not accept, and would not allow an employment officer to say, that an offer was unreasonable if it involved starvation wages. He does not recognise that as exploitation. That is why he cannot find a case. He prevents any case.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no. I think that I explained it absolutely clearly.
It is in the interests of jobseekers to show maximum availability to get back to work, and not to restrict their jobsearch. The main cause of poverty, as study after study has shown, is not low wages but the lack of a job—and the more jobs, the more income tax. It is gratifying to note that seasonally adjusted unemployment fell in April to 2.328 million, a decrease of 18,900 on the month, which is the 20th consecutive monthly fall.
As the honourable Member for Birkenhead commented in the same document as the noble Earl, Lord Russell:
"Defining the poverty line is a political Eldorado for any welfare scheme".
We do not believe that that is the right way to approach this. We believe that the effect of the amendments might be to close off opportunities for jobseekers of getting back into work. That is why I cannot accept them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he discuss some of the arguments that have been raised about the cost to the Exchequer?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the possible extent of such a debate is limitless. However, we do not believe that the right way to mitigate the open-ended commitment to helping people is by going down the route which the noble Earl advocates.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly those on the Liberal Benches. The Minister made two points. First, he challenged us by saying that the amendment is defective because it is unclear. The Minister knows perfectly well what we are talking about—perhaps I should say that he would have known perfectly well if he had been listening to the speeches. We were saying that nobody should be required to accept a job which pays less than the jobseeker's allowance which, as I spelt out, is £37 per week for a single person under 25; £46.80 per week for a single person over 25, and £73 for a couple. I had hoped that I had made that abundantly clear. I am sorry that the noble Lord felt obliged to say that it was not clear.
We dealt with the question of mortgage payments last night. That point is covered by the changes in the mortgage procedure. We are talking about the level of JSA as a benefit by comparison with the pay offered in a Jobcentre. I had hoped that I had made that perfectly clear. I do not think that the noble Lord was fair to suggest that the amendment, as moved, was unclear.
The noble Lord's second point was that we were not sufficiently clear about who might be affected. The noble Lord is the most courteous of Ministers, but on
444
this occasion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, I do not think that he paid us the courtesy of listening to what was said.
I had hoped that we had made it clear that we were distinguishing between couples without children and couples with children. We said that the consequences of failing to pass the amendment would be equally devastating, but in different ways. Why? Because a couple without children or a single person will not be entitled to an in-work top-up benefit. Therefore, they are required to accept a job which pays less than income support or JSA. That is what they are stuck with. They will be earning an income that is below the poverty line. We have said that that is an exploitative wage by any definition. We are talking about jobs that pay less than the noble Lord, myself or anybody else in the Chamber accepts as the minimum poverty level. That is why income support is set at the level that it is—because it is the minimum poverty level; yet those without children are being asked to work for less than that. We are saying that that is unacceptable because it is exploitative.
Although those with children get family credit to top up wages, and that overcomes their immediate poverty problem, it does so at the expense of creating a social security problem for the rest of us. What happens? We, as taxpayers, then top up that poverty exploitative wage to above the poverty line because they have children. What does that mean? It means that the employer can cut wages to wherever he will, because he knows that he can export his wages bill onto us as taxpayers.
Without children, a couple are below the poverty line; with children they are above the poverty line, courtesy of the taxpayer subsidising the employer. I had hoped that we had made it clear that either of those alternatives is unacceptable. It is unacceptable if a couple have no children because they are semi-destitute; it is unacceptable if they have children, because we, as taxpayers, are subsidising the wage bill which should be paid in the wage packet.
The Minister's third argument was that we had no evidence of that happening. I have to tell the Minister— we said this in Committee—that a recent survey of Jobcentres in Manchester showed that nearly one-third of the jobs on offer were paying less than JSA/income support rates. They are no longer protected by wages councils.
When the Minister therefore says that there is no point in someone holding out for a rate of pay which is not realistically obtainable—I quote his words—what is he saying? A rate of pay that is no longer realistically obtainable? If all the employer is willing to offer is £2 a week are jobseekers supposed to accept that? Are they expected to accept £1 a week, £1.50, or 50p a week? Is it reasonable for a couple without children to work for 30 hours a week at 50p an hour and earn £15 a week and have no in-work benefit? Is that what the Minister is saying? It is reasonable to work for £15 a week—30 hours a week at 50p an hour? That is the implication of the Minister's refusal to accept the amendment.
The moment one refuses to put in a floor below which wages cannot fall, some employers—the most exploitative—will take advantage of that to pay below it, because they know that people in the labour market

445
have no choice: without children they will be below the poverty line; with children we, as taxpayers, will be subsidising them because the employer refuses to pay an adequate wage.
I ask your Lordships to support us tonight. While we want —as indeed we do want—people to enter the labour market, we are equally concerned about the cost of the social security bill. How will we stop the social security bill for family credit, rising and rising, and rising? We can only stop that happpening by ensuring that employers cannot pitch wages where they will, knowing that we will prop them up. A vote for the amendment is a vote not just to help people back to work but to cap the social security bill, rather than offer employers an open invitation to pay what they will, knowing that you, I, us, will take the strain. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B,

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Healey, L.

Avebury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Birk, B.

Hooson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bridges, L.

Howell, L.

Brookes, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hylton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Inchyra, L.

Carter, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jay, L.

Chapple, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Chorley, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Judd, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Desai, L.

Listowel, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dubs, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Erroll, E.

McNair, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkender, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Molloy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gregson, L.

Nelson, E.

Grey, E.

Nicol, B.

446

Northbourne, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ogmore, L.

Simon, V.

Palmer, L.

Stallard, L.

Parry, L.

Stedman, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Whaddon, L.

Russell, E.

White, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wigoder, L.

Scanlon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Addison, V.

Geddes, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gisborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Ampthill, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Astor, V.

Haig, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Balfour, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blake, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hood, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Burnham, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterfield, L.

Kingsland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cadman, L.

Knollys, V.

Carnock, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Leigh, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, Bp.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L.

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleridge, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

McConnell, L.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dilhorne, V.

May, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dudley, E.

Mersey, V.

Dundonald, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Elles, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Flather, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Foley, L.

Moyne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

447

Norrie, L.

Sharples, B.

Northbrook, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northesk, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Slim, V.

Orkney, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stewartby, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pender, L.

Strange, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Prior, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Teviot, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Radnor, E.

Torphichen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renwick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.13 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall prescribe that a person who has responsibility for caring for a child under the age of 3 years shall not be required to be available to take up any employed earner's employment at less than 7 days' notice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I tabled an amendment directed towards the position of young single mothers. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, convinced me that I was wrong in regard to mothers who did not wish to take up employment in that they would be covered by income support. I have satisfied myself that the amount of income support is equal to the amount of the jobseeker's allowance.
Amendment No. 26 is a modest amendment and is directed towards the position of a single mother with a young child who wishes to go out to work. Some mothers will wish to go to work but others will not. As drafted, the Bill requires a mother or father who is the single carer of a young child to be available within 24 hours to take up work. I suggest that we should not legislate against the best interests of the child. There is no doubt that poor quality childcare and childminding are very much against the best interests of the child and can be damaging. A great deal of research shows that. The arrangement of good quality childcare takes time, even if granny is to look after the child. Granny may have a part-time job and may need time to make other arrangements and so forth.
I suggest that seven days is not an unreasonable period to provide. I accept that one cannot tell a young parent whether he or she should go out to work or stay at home and look after the child. I accept that one cannot tell parents what to do about childcare. However, we must not put in their way obstacles which make it more
448
difficult to obtain proper childcare and which militate against it. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort and tell me that if he cannot accept the amendment the issue will be covered in regulations or guidance. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I support the amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling it again. It is sensible and proposes a small measure which shows a degree of compassion. It provides that the potential employee,
"shall not be required to be available to take up any employed earner's employment at less than 7 days' notice".
It does not provide that potential employees cannot be required to attend an interview; therefore, during that period they could be arranging employment. It provides a period of seven days within which it is hoped arrangements can be made for the child, who is an important factor.
It is not a case of judging whether it is better for a child up to the age of three to have the parent staying at home. It does not state whether the parent should go out to work or not. It does not make a moral judgment. Many parents go out to work because they have to. Many parents seek to go out to work because they do not wish to be dependent on the welfare state; they wish independently to provide for their children. However, if a job is available and they are able to obtain it, it is right that they should be given a period within which to make arrangements for their children. Seven days is a reasonable period.
We would all agree that a child is not a parcel that one can pick up today and park tomorrow, even if one can find good childcare facilities which are not as prolific in the UK as they should be. The child must be made aware that he or she is to be looked after by someone else. A sensible parent may wish to take the child to the carer before he or she goes to work on the first day. The parent may wish to introduce the child to the carer and make sure that the child is happy and contented in the situation.
We are dealing only with children up to the age of three. They are toddlers who perhaps have not been out of the care of the person who has looked after and had responsibility for them. This is a small but important measure. I hope that the Minister is able to support it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, concessions that have been won by Members on all sides who are critical of the Bill have tended to be bite-sized. The amendment represents another bite-sized concession and would reflect a sense of humanity on the part of the Government because it recognises the real world.
I speak as someone who for many years represented a constituency in another place. There, many children, both parents being out to work, found themselves alone in the house in the evening. They were latchkey kids. They had keys hanging around their necks because no

449
one was at home to let them in. Sometimes they played, not only in their own gardens, but up and down the street. They were a danger to drivers and to themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, gave an example of what it is like in the real world trying to cope with young children when one does not have much money, support or a strong supportive family. In new towns, one of which I represented, there is not a nearby generation of grandparents to turn to. Therefore, the parent is locked into a two-generation situation.
This House is supposed to be concerned with family values and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has argued consistently that doing anything which will cause the break-up or challenge the stability of the family is a very unwise path to follow. This relatively modest amendment recognises the acute dilemmas of women with children who are dependent on them. Those women must try to find adequate childcare and that does not mean just a neighbour, the youngster down the road who wants to make a few extra pounds a week, or the teenage girl who has just come out of school and agrees to look after the children for a few hours and who may not realise the dangers of, for example, paraffin stoves. It is an essential safeguard to allow mothers time to find proper childcare for their children.
The Government have seen the point of our arguments as regards volunteers and others with special needs, and that is extremely welcome. I hope that they can look also at this dilemma and respond to it sympathetically.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with a few general words about the jobseeker's system and then focus on the particular amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
An effective availability condition is vital for any unemployment benefit. Jobseekers must be available to take up work and, in order to ensure that they are open to as many job opportunities as possible, they should normally be available to take up employment immediately.
We recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect people with caring responsibilities to be available immediately. That is why in JSA, as we have now agreed, carers will be entitled to 48 hours' notice of any job or job interview. That gives carers longer to rearrange their caring responsibilities and be available for employment.
People with caring responsibilities who wish to participate in the labour market will, as now, need to plan in advance the best way of rearranging their caring responsibilities to fit in with any future employment that may be offered. When an opportunity of work arises, they will have 48 hours' notice to put these plans into place and take up work or attend an interview.
Over and above those special arrangements for notice, the new JSA availability condition will provide further flexibility for jobseekers, and in particular for carers. In JSA, we will be introducing for the first time a specific easement of the availability rule to allow general restrictions on the period that carers should have to be available during the week. They will be able to limit the number of hours that they are available, below the
450
minimum of 40 hours to be applied to other jobseekers, in line with their caring responsibilities. That is an important recognition of the importance that we attach to caring responsibilities in society.
It may help if I draw attention to the way the new rules will fit together to the advantage of those with caring responsibilities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had understood that the word "carers" does not refer to parents but to those caring for, for example, the elderly, the disabled and so on. Is the Minister now saying that a parent caring for a child is also now a "carer" and that therefore the 48-hour concession now applies to those parents?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, yes. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to finish my explanation. In practice, many carers will be able to arrange the terms of their restrictions on availability so that they will not be required to be available on several days in the week. That will not affect their entitlement to JSA. Since no carer will be expected to be ready to take up work on a day on which he had agreed that he would not be available, the practical effect of these new flexibilities will be that in many instances carers will be given more time to respond to offers of work.
There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that carers make themselves available for as many job opportunities as possible and making sure that they have a reasonable time to make other arrangements for their caring responsibilities. I was unable to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, (whose expertise is well-known and has been alluded to) during Committee because, in effect, it excused any person with a child under two years of age from being required to be available at all. The noble Lord has, I accept, moved a great deal to take account of the concerns I expressed but I believe that his present amendment would still, in fact, tip the balance to the detriment of carers' responsibility—and I use that word in its widest sense. I urge your Lordships' House to take account of the considerable new flexibilities for the treatment of carers that we have introduced for JSA which do not exist in UB or IS.
As I understand the position, unmarried mothers would receive the same money whether they are in receipt of income support or the jobseeker's allowance. The important point is that there is nothing to prevent those women availing themselves of the services of the Employment Service to assist in obtaining work if they wish to do so. The amount of money concerned is the same. It is merely a matter of retaining the integrity of the jobseeker's system, which is intended for people available and looking for work compared with people who are receiving income support but who happen to be looking for a job. I believe that that answers the problem to which the noble Lord has referred.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what the Minister has just said. I believe that he said that a person who is drawing income support may search for work but would not be subject to the 48-hour constraint. Is that correct?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that those receiving income support are in a position to negotiate according to their circumstances. Once they have started the job, they go forward from there. But it is right that they do not face the 48-hour constraint, which may be a difficulty.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, he mentioned in his reply the jobseeker's agreement. Am I right in thinking that anyone who cares for another person, whether elderly, disabled or a small child, can reach an agreement with the Employment Service staff that he may or may not be available for work for a period longer than 48 hours if the Employment Service staff can be persuaded that, in the circumstances, that is not only reasonable but is necessary, because sometimes it may take longer than 48 hours to arrange such matters?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there are two separate issues here. The first concerns the period within which people must make themselves available; that is, 48 hours. Reference has also been made to the amount of time per week for which a jobseeker must make himself available. In the case of an ordinary jobseeker, that is 40 hours. In the case of those who have various responsibilities, the amount of availability may be reduced. It is a characteristic of the system that the jobseeker may plan for which parts of the week he makes himself available. Therefore, the reality is that by combining the 48-hour rule and the availability rule, there is a considerable degree of flexibility as to when the person actually starts work. That is the crucial point.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think that I understand what the noble Lord is saying but I still find it necessary to have from him an absolute clarification. We are not necessarily talking only about unmarried mothers. We may be talking about mothers, or indeed fathers, who have been deserted or are single for whatever reason. Am I right that people receiving income support who at the same time are seeking a job may make their own arrangements in relation to the delay before the job is taken up? Am I correct in believing that?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is my understanding.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, on that basis, and subject to reading what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the ejusdem generis rule applies to this subsection.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I fear that I must start with a string of apologies. After the most important social and economic issues which your Lordships have been discussing, this raises a technical point of statutory interpretation. Further, it is always expressed in Latin and so it appears in the amendment in Latin. I
452
remember, when we were consolidating the Scottish law of criminal procedure, that some of us queried whether it was really necessary that so much of the statute should be in Latin. But that great Scottish judge, Lord Guest, came to the rescue of the draftsman and said firmly, "Yes", it was desirable, at which point we all shut up. So there is a precedent for the words appearing in Latin in the amendment.
Thirdly, I am afraid that lawyers have a very odd way of pronouncing Latin.
A noble Lord: Not at all!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the rule of ejusdem generis is a rule of common sense, with the courts basing themselves on what Parliament presumably intended by its formulae. A characteristic instance would be a measure concerned with the transport of animals where the legislation might say that it applies to calves, lambs and other animals. Of course, "other animals" covers the whole animal kingdom, but the courts always said that that could not have been the intention of Parliament. Parliament cannot really have meant that menagerie animals should be included. It must be animals like, say, kids and foals if you are going to rely on the words "other animals". In other words, the generality is construed with reference to the particular instances that go before. It is construed ejusdem generis, of the same sort.
What the draftsman has done in this amendment—and, in my submission done most valuably—is to follow a suggestion made by the Renton Committee on preparation of legislation which is still a very rich ore that is insufficiently mined. The committee suggested that it would be a valuable indication if examples were given of the sort of generality that is to be applied.
In those circumstances, this must be to some extent a probing amendment because it seems to be inherent in the fact that when you give examples you are giving particular examples of a generality and those examples are meant to be followed. Therefore, the other instances will be of the same sort of which the examples are exemplary. It could well be said—indeed, I believe it probably is to be said —that when examples are given the courts will, in effect, apply the ejusdem generis rule and people reading the statute will do the same. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment in declaratory form. It may well be unnecessary, but I thought that it might be useful for your Lordships to know to what sort of instance, apart from these examples, the draftsman intends the subsection to apply. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is, as usual, quite right. I believe that he owes the House no apology whatever for putting forward legal terminology in legal language. After all, we are making law and we need to have some understanding of what we do. The rule to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention is, of course, very much to the point. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of something which offends against his rule. I have in mind

453
the butchers shop which used to be in the market at Oxford and which advertised itself as, "Family, University and Pork Butchers".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the understanding of the rule would be very much assisted if we were to accept what the noble and learned Lord suggested. It would clarify the intention of Parliament in a way which I hope would be very helpful to the courts, which may have to consider such matters in the future. The Minister may be able to meet the suggestion if he were to speak with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the noble and learned Lord referred to a recommendation of a committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, I can merely say to him how grateful I am to him for supporting our recommendation and suggesting to your Lordships that it is one that could be followed.
Of course, we do have rather similar circumstances to what we find in subsection (3). But, sometimes, when we have those circumstances, a different situation arises because there is another legal rule of interpretation which is exactly what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has just reminded me of the expression that I was just about to use: expressio unius est exclusio alterius, if you express one thing, you are deemed to exclude others. I say that just as a precaution and to point out that in subsection (3) that principle cannot apply because we have the expression which reads:
"The following are examples of restrictions"—
not exclusive examples—
"for which provision may be made by the regulations".
That indicates that other instances could be given. If other instances are to be given, we must accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord and confine those instances to similar matters. I say that because if we dared to translate the expression ejusdem generis, we could say, "Well, let's use the expression 'similar matters'". However, I think that we had better not do so.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the most useful contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I should like to reiterate the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, by saying that the noble and learned Lord never needs to have any reason to apologise to the House. In his remarks, the noble and learned Lord drew attention to the very valuable and useful legal principle of ejusdem generis.
Having prefaced my remarks with those words, perhaps I may turn to the clause and section which we are now discussing. I must admit that I am slightly puzzled in this case as to how the application of such a rule to subsection (3) would work. Subsection (2) of the clause allows regulations to make provision enabling a claimant to restrict his availability for employment in certain prescribed ways. Subsection (3) lists a number of examples of such restrictions. They are restrictions on the nature, the terms and conditions of employment for which a claimant is available; and the periods for which and
454
locality or localities within which he is available. Although they are simple examples and the list is obviously not exhaustive, I must begin by saying that we have no plans to provide for any other types of restriction.
Allowing a claimant to restrict his availability is, by definition, an easement of the general rule. My noble friend and I have, on many occasions in this House, given assurances about the circumstances in which such a restriction will be acceptable. The sorts of restriction which we have listed at subsection (3) are, we believe, reasonable and fair. Although we have no plans to allow others, it is clear that any such restrictions would be in the claimant's interest. Why else should we allow easements to the basic availability rule?
We believe that making subsection (3) subject to the ejusdem generis rule would not protect the claimant, as there is nothing to protect him from. It is not possible to create restrictions to a claimant's availability—which are easements on the entitlement condition which he has to meet —which damage his interests. In subsection (3) the restrictions relate to the,
"nature of the employment…the periods for which he is available…the terms or conditions of employment for which he is available; restrictions on the locality or localities within which he is available".
It seems to us to be difficult to think of any further restrictions which would fall outside that rather general description of what could be done. We will certainly reflect on the comments of the noble and learned Lord and we would be pleased to discuss the point further with him if he felt that would be useful because he has taken a valuable initiative here. However, I hope that against that background and explanation of our approach to this matter, the noble and learned Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would agree with me, in view of what he has said—that the four particular matters which the Government have in mind may be covered by regulations—that it would be better not to use the expression "examples" because the word "examples" implies that there could be other matters. If there are arguably other matters, then those other matters should be dealt with under the ejusdem generis rule.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that I agree with that. If I understood correctly what the noble Lord said, he said that he had no intention to extend the examples. How can you have a series of examples, which are examples of something larger, which you have no intention to extend?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that we are talking about the restrictions and not the examples. I would say in response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton that the restrictions that will be brought in will not be all encompassing because logically, were that to be the case, there would be no definition of availability

455
for employment at all. I am not convinced that the logic of my noble friend's comments takes him to the conclusion that he suggested to me.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships who have participated in and to the Minister who has replied to the debate. However, I noticed that he carefully differentiated his pronunciation of the Latin phrase from the way the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I pronounced it. Even so, I am not sure he went as far as the way the ancient Romans would have expressed it. I entirely agree with the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. It seems to me that when you give examples you are implying that there are other matters of which they are exemplary. I very much hope that this way of drafting by examples, as indicated by the Renton Committee, will be pursued. I would very much welcome a chance of discussing the matter with the draftsmen and First Parliamentary Counsel. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would consent to join in such a discussion, it would, I think, be useful. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Actively seeking employment]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("to have").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 deals again with the tendency of the Bill to have what are, in effect, hidden provisions, hidden requirements and hidden steps that the claimant may be required to take. I beg the pardon of the House for having lost my place. I was too busy listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, whose speech was most interesting and most enjoyable.
Amendment No. 29 and Amendment No. 30, which is consequential upon it, deal with requirements which may be brought in by regulation subsequent to the passage of this Bill. They purchase specifically on Clause 7(1) and the steps which a person may take if he is actively seeking employment. The Bill in its present form refers to,
"such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment".
It is the words "have to" to which this amendment takes exception. There are no steps specified at present which the claimant has to take. Therefore whatever steps the claimant will have to take will be specified in regulation in the future. We do not yet know what they are. As so often in the Bill, we are being asked to approve a pig in a poke. As so often in the Bill, the Government are not relying on the general provision expressing a general principle in the way recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Renton; they are setting out to prescribe, one after another, all the things that a claimant should do and all the steps which he must take in order to prove that he is actively seeking employment. Indeed so many steps are contemplated that one sometimes wonders whether this Bill was written by John Buchan in conjunction with Lewis Carroll.
I do not think that that is a sensible approach to the drafting of legislation and I do not think it is a sensible approach to seeking employment, because the best steps for a person to take when seeking employment may depend on all sorts of things. They may depend, for a start, on what sort of employment a person is seeking. If he is seeking academic employment, there are all sorts of things I would advise him to do which I certainly would not advise him to do if he was seeking a job as a bricklayer. If he was seeking a job as a fisherman, there are all sorts of things I might advise him to do which I would not advise him to do if he was seeking a job as a garage mechanic. Therefore the suitable steps depend on the nature of the work, on where the person is and on what travel one can reasonably expect him to undertake. They also depend on a person's circumstances, such as caring responsibilities, to which reference has already been made.
I simply do not think any legislators, however wise, can set out in advance all the steps which we can require all the claimants to take. If they try to do so, we shall have an endless refinement of regulation upon regulation upon regulation—the sort of proliferation of pages in the statute book to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has so often called our attention, and a great deal of confusion and a great deal of hardship on the ground.
A great deal of the disentitlement to benefit which is likely to happen under this Bill will happen for failure to take various steps prescribed by regulation. We on these Benches believe that even with the best will in the world we cannot always be sure that those steps will be in the client's interest as a way to finding work. There may be circumstances where a client may reasonably fail to take those steps. As we have not succeeded in persuading the Government that claimants should retain benefit pending an appeal, we must return to the restrictions on the steps that they are prepared to take. I may approve a list of steps; I may not approve a list of steps; but either way I want to know what the steps are before I am asked to approve them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have been looking carefully at the amendments during the noble Earl's speech and I think that there is a great deal of common ground between us. I shall try to explain that. Let us consider the effect of the two omissions. Is it the noble Earl's intention in removing the reference to "reasonable" steps, that the regulations could in effect make provision for a jobseeker to take any sort of steps, whether reasonable or not? I do not believe that it is. The first priority of all jobseekers should be to get back to work as soon as possible. The requirement for the jobseeker to take such steps in any week as he can reasonably be expected "to have" to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment, is intended to give a clear signal to jobseekers of what is expected of them.
We have spent some time on this matter since the first Committee sessions and receipt of the views of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The wording we have come up with is the product of considerable deliberation, and it may help the House if I try to explain.

457
What we have tried to do here is to put an objective question at the root of the actively seeking work condition. That is the commonsense query "what do I have to do in order to have the best chance of getting a job?" That is then qualified by a reasonableness test as set out in the provision. To delete the words "have to" would take away that commonsense standard. The question is no longer "what should be done, subject to any limitation of reasonableness?" but "what is it reasonable to expect the claimant to do?" I suggest that chat second question is harder to answer, because it immediately makes all aspects of the test more relative.
To give an example, I, knowing my nephew (in fact I have no nephew, so this is a hypothetical nephew), might judge that I could reasonably expect him only to do the tiniest amount to find work. It might be optimistic to the point of being entirely unreasonable to expect him to get out of bed before noon. But in order for him to have the best prospects of finding employment I know that he must make greater efforts than that. We must consider not what I reasonably expect him to do but what he can be expected to have to do. That is the point here, The steps a jobseeker should take are those that in reality he can be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.
I should explain that the current regulations state that:
"the taking of one step on a single occasion during a week shall not be sufficient unless taking that step on that occasion is all that it is reasonable for the person in question to do in that week".
They also contain a non-exhaustive list of steps which may be acceptable as steps towards meeting the actively seeking employment condition. Our intention is to continue that approach in JSA. As we have made clear, however, we propose to broaden the list of steps so that it will include not only steps that are actual jobsearch, as at present, but also steps that will improve a jobseeker' s employability.
To sum up, we believe that it is up to jobseekers to lake responsibility for their steps to find work. Those steps must, however, be reasonable and must take full account of their circumstances. Clause 7(2) (a) is intended to provide for that.
I hope that that explanation answers the noble Earl's questions. If it does, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in responding to the amendment. There is common ground on intentions. I understand why he has proceeded as he has, but I am still not happy. I think that he is trying to achieve something that would be very good if he could achieve it but which is impossible to achieve.
I understand why the Minister wanted an objective question, but I do not believe that amid the variety of people and jobs that might be concerned any such thing is possible. The noble Lord has chosen a question which appears to be objective. However, I do not believe that it is any such thing. Case law, regulation and confusion will make clear that it is not. I understand why it would be attractive to the Minister were it possible for the test not to be relative. That would make life a lot easier. So would a great many things make life easier which will not happen.
458
To take the Minister's own example of his hypothetical nephew, which I much enjoyed, in general what he said about his nephew getting out of bed before noon may be perfectly reasonable and sensible. However, suppose, for example, that his nephew is seeking employment and is well qualified as a jazz drummer or a nightclub bouncer and regularly comes home late from any work he may get and goes to bed at 4 o'clock in the morning. In that case his getting out of bed at noon may not be altogether unreasonable. There is inevitably an element of relativity in the very nature of the whole question that the Bill asks. That is why I believe that this attempt to use compulsion and to set out the steps which people have to take is, at the end of the day, profoundly mistaken.
I do not believe that I shall change the Government's mind through the Division Lobbies, even were I to win a majority there. I shall come back to these questions in one form or another, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No 30A:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall provide that where a doubt arises as to whether a person is actively seeking employment or is to be treated as actively seeking employment, an income based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable pending a determination by the adjudication officer, where the person has placed reasonable restrictions on his availability as a result of illness or disability, and hardship would otherwise result if that payment were not made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B.
The purpose of the first of the amendments is to enable disabled people who have placed some restrictions on the work for which they are available still to qualify for hardship payments and reduced income-related jobseeker's allowance if there is a doubt that they have not actively sought work in a particular week.
People who do not meet the basic labour market conditions of being available for and actively seeking work are to be disallowed jobseeker's allowance until such time as they change their intentions or behaviour to meet the conditions. That is set out in the jobseeker's allowance White Paper at paragraph 4.36. Where subsequently the Employment Service has some doubt about the conditions, there will be no hardship payment pending a final decision, unless the person is in a vulnerable group. The definition of "vulnerable" is therefore crucial in determining whether any payment is to be made at all.
The amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to widen the proposed definition of disability to include people whose restrictions on their work availability resulting from a physical or mental condition have already been accepted as reasonable. That is an easily identifiable group of claimants who may otherwise be faced with no jobseeker's allowance payment at all. Secondly, the amendment only affects situations where there is a doubt about a claimant satisfying the condition of actively seeking work, not the availability condition.

459
With an estimated 150,000 disabled people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance in its first year, it is important that a definition of sickness and disability should take account of the needs of that particular group of people, who may fail not only the incapacity test but also the labour market conditions of jobseeker's allowance.
An example from a citizens advice bureau shows that people who may not score enough points in the all-work test of incapacity may present problems in fulfilling the condition of actively seeking work. A bureau in eastern England reported the case of a client in his late 50s, who was living with his mother, whose benefit had been suspended for failing to show evidence that he was actively seeking work. The bureau said that he had trouble with reading, writing and communicating and became nervous when meeting strangers. The CAB described him as "slightly mentally retarded".
Unless classed as vulnerable, the claimant would have no access to any payments for at least two weeks and up to a maximum of 26 weeks. Furthermore, people who are not entitled to hardship payments have no recourse to social fund crisis loans for living expenses.
My noble friend stated that some people who are sick or disabled could fall within the definition of vulnerable and therefore qualify for hardship payments, but only where they have a serious medical condition (as reported in our proceedings for 25th April at col. 887 of Hansard) or are eligible for the disability premium (col. 873).
Regarding the phrase "serious medical condition", when my noble friend replies, will he clarify how that is to be defined, giving examples, and say what evidence will be required to verify the condition?
As regards the disability premium, it is likely that few people signing on following withdrawal of incapacity benefit will continue to receive the premium. In order to qualify for the disability premium in the first place, the disabled person has to be registered as blind or in receipt of disability living allowance care or mobility components. Research into invalidity benefit claimants indicates that fewer than one in five receives the disability living allowance or equivalent benefits for care and mobility needs. If a similar proportion is replicated in the numbers coming off incapacity benefit to sign on, less than 25,000 could qualify as vulnerable for hardship payments.
Restricting the definition of a disabled person to someone who is eligible for the premium is therefore likely to miss out many vulnerable people with ill health or disabilities, many of whom may have other needs which do not fall neatly into the qualifying conditions for the premium. Using as a definition people who have restricted availability on health grounds would be easier administratively as it is using a definition which has already been accepted and would include a wider group of people who would certainly be vulnerable. It would provide a much needed cushion for those disabled people who may have been moved from incapacity benefit on to jobseeker's allowance, many of whom would be likely to have to place some restrictions on their availability for work. Such people may be in
460
danger also of losing jobseeker's allowance in the event of just a doubt—not proof—that they have not been doing enough to seek work.
The purpose of Amendment No. 31A is to treat as actively seeking work someone who is appealing against withdrawal of incapacity benefit. Amendment No. 31B treats as actively seeking work someone who is appealing against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit when scoring at least five points in the all-work test of incapacity.
The amendments seek to tackle the issue of people appealing against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit who may not be in a position to fulfil the labour market conditions for jobseeker's allowance. The amendments seek to treat such people as actively seeking work pending their incapacity appeal. It means that they would still have to show that they were available for work, albeit with some restrictions on their availability, but they would not be required to take steps actively to seek work until after their appeal has been heard.
The second amendment is a narrower version of the first as it would be limited to people who had attracted at least five points in the all-work test of incapacity, suggesting some significant disability. People scoring over five points could include someone who "sometimes cannot rise from sitting without holding onto something" and "sometimes cannot bend or kneel as if to pick up a piece of paper from the floor and straighten up again". That would score a total of six points. Situations where "strangers have some difficulty in understanding his speech" would score eight points.
In earlier debates on the Bill the Minister confirmed that signing on will not prejudice an incapacity appeal. However, he failed to answer the point that an incapacity appeal can prejudice a claim for jobseeker's allowance. There is already evidence that people appealing an incapacity decision are regarded by Jobcentres as not being capable of, or available for, or actively seeking, work, pending an appeal hearing.
I have recently had brought to my attention the case of a disabled person with polio. Because of his subsequent condition he was told that he would not be able to get work in any event and could not be considered capable of seeking work even though he wished to do so. If the Minister cannot concede the point about exempting such people from the labour market test, can he give some assurances that all incapacity appeals will take no longer than four weeks to be heard so that if people are stuck in a twilight zone between benefits it occurs only for a limited period of time. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support this group of amendments from these Benches. The arguments have been extremely well marshalled by the noble Lord. There is no need for me to be other than brief.
We had a somewhat similar debate at a previous stage of the Bill. The amendments deal with a problem that we all recognise from different angles. It will be interesting to see how the Government reply to the cogent arguments of the noble Lord.

461
Amendment No. 30A is carefully worded. It refers to "reasonable restrictions" on availability and the "hardship" which would result. It is important that the Minister answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and gives some estimate of those whom the Government consider will qualify for hardship payments. The amendment deals with the special situation of sick or disabled people and we have already discussed this at earlier stages of the Bill. The situation has been set out clearly. I hope that when the Government reply they will say how the situation regarding sickness and disability is to be taken into account, how hardship and vulnerability are to be defined, and so on. If the rules do not look after that group of people which is particularly hard hit, we believe it important that the Government make the position regarding sick and disabled people absolutely clear. Delays in determination by adjudication officers will be a specific problem for sick and disabled people who have enough problems seeking and finding employment.
A number of later amendments deal with different aspects of the problem. However, this group of amendments is intended to deal with one of the aspects, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained. It is exemplified in Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B.
Amendment No. 31B refers to a person who scores five or more points in respect of one or more descriptions in the all-work test. That is clear. The amendments deal with a specific problem which the rules should deal with. We are pleased to support the amendment from these Benches.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment so clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and in particular Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B. I understand that at present appeals take about 26 weeks. Therefore, a person would have to show what steps he was taking in actively seeking work for each of those 26 weeks.
We have had much discussion about reasonableness, relative or otherwise, on another amendment. Does the Minister consider it reasonable that someone who may ultimately win his appeal and may be judged incapable of work should have to go through those steps for 26 weeks?
Earl Russell: My Lords, there was a dreadful sting in the last sentence of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He faced the Minister with an alternative which seems to me perfectly fair: either procure the hearing of appeals within four weeks or concede the amendment. It is a perfectly fair alternative. I should have thought that accepting the amendment was the easier of the two.
I ask the Minister to spare a thought for the employment officers with 150,000 people of limited capacity formerly on invalidity benefit coming at them. I should imagine that it is rather worse than being a Minister with 150,000 amendments coming at him.
There is bound to be a good deal of confusion. During that confusion there is bound to be hardship. That hardship will fall on people of limited capacity who will not be able to deal with it well. The amendment acts as
462
a holding operation to reduce the amount of hardship and confusion while the service beds down to what the Minister himself has admitted will be a process of adaptation that will take a certain amount of time and effort. The amendments are sensible, modest, limited and directed to the needs that they are designed to meet.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider a political point. The Secretary of State—no less—has frequently warned (most recently in the Daily Mail of 8th March) about the amount of agitation and protest that he sees coming down the line on the subject of incapacity benefit. I have no idea whether the Secretary of State is right; he may well be. He is concerned, he says, about whether the Government will be able to hold the line against the protest. If the Government wanted to hold the line, I should have thought they would find themselves much better placed to do so if they could show that they had made some manageable limited concessions to meet the problem and, what is more, that they had done so in response to an amendment moved from their own Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl invites me to consider what it would be like if 150,000 amendments came at only one Minister. There are two of us here and it feels a little as if 75,000 are coming at each of us. I am happy to say that I ducked out of the one that was conducted in Latin, which was perhaps just as well.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen has returned to matters which he addressed in Committee on a number of occasions. I notice that he has moved his place a little and is directly behind me. I suppose that prevents my giving him a look of a certain kind occasionally without making it too obvious by turning right round—only physically. However, I understand the concerns he has raised and those of other noble Lords about the position of disabled people who may suffer hardship if an allowance is withdrawn in the circumstances we are discussing here. The Government intend to make provision in two ways for disabled people through the list of vulnerable groups who can have access to hardship payments.
First, as my noble friend accepted, we will allow access to payments for claimants who have a disability premium. The award of the premium recognises that the claimant has a significant disability which means that he may be vulnerable to hardship. The second provision we are making is that any claimant who does not qualify for the premium but who has a serious medical condition which could mean that the withdrawal of funds had particularly serious effects for his health will also be able to have access to payments.
I believe that the second provision should address many of my noble friend's anxieties. Many claimants may place restrictions of one kind or another on their availability as a result of a medical condition. In many cases those may be minor in nature, as in the example chosen by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—who is always good for examples. He suggested that someone with rather poor eyesight would not be likely to succeed in a job as a look-out. However, that person's general health may still be good and he would be perfectly capable of a range of work. I therefore believe that the conditions

463
we have suggested will mean that those claimants who have serious difficulties as a result of their disability will have access to hardship payments. I do not wish to go as far as the amendment suggests.
My noble friend asked how I would define "serious medical condition", for hardship purposes. We wish to allow the adjudication officers discretion to consider individual circumstances and therefore we do not propose to set out a list of specific conditions which could exclude some claimants and not take account of the severity of the condition. We have in mind that an adjudication officer will be able to award hardship payments to claimants who have conditions which mean that they have special needs relating to the condition and that they are particularly vulnerable to hardship. For example, a person with diabetes might need to maintain a particular diet. We are still considering the details of the arrangements which will be set out in regulations and we are happy to consider the views of my noble friend and other noble Lords which have been expressed on the matter.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B. We debated the same issues at an earlier stage, so I understand what is behind my noble friend's amendments. Like other amendments, they seek to recognise that people who have a disability deserve special consideration. I have given the House assurances many times that we have taken the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the labour market rules for JSA. I am a little disappointed to have to do so again, but I am happy to lay out what the special considerations are.
The way the system will work is that people who are found capable of work under the all-work test will equally be capable of work for JSA. I believe I made that clear on a number of occasions. Those who wish to appeal against the IB decision can claim JSA, pending the outcome of the appeal, if they make themselves available for work and look for work. In addition, provision has been made for those who do not wish to make themselves available for work pending their appeal. Existing IB claimants, those in receipt of severe disability allowance and others who have been incapacitated for 28 weeks by 12th April 1995, will be able to get their full income support personal allowance pending their appeal if found capable at their first all-work test. Any other person who first claims IB on or after 13th April 1995 can also claim income support pending the appeal. In the second case, the personal allowance will be reduced by 20 per cent. because we do not believe it reasonable to pay the full rate of income support for people who do not satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement.
The first priority of jobseekers is to find employment. To that end it is vital that all jobseekers are available for and actively seeking employment. My noble friend's amendments would mean that certain people who have been found capable of work under the all-work test would not have to fulfil the actively seeking employment condition. I realise that the amendments are aimed at those who are contesting the decision that they are capable of work. I am sympathetic to the situation
464
which many such people find themselves in. But I think it wrong simply to waive the actively seeking employment condition in these cases.
At an earlier stage of the examination of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Swinfen expressed the view that people who are awaiting an appeal should not have to take steps to find work when they may never be regarded as being capable of work. I realise that some of those who appeal against the IB decision will be successful in doing so. But it is equally true that some will not. Rather than waiving the requirement to be actively seeking employment, I think it better to enable the rules to respond sensitively to each person who finds himself or herself in this situation.
Let me explain again how JSA will be geared to fitting in with the needs and capabilities of people with mental and physical disabilities. Of course, I recognise that some claimants—whether or not they are contesting a decision on IB—will have a condition that may affect their job prospects. We intend to carry forward the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support which allow a person to place restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other condition of employment which he is prepared to accept where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. In other words, such claimants who are appealing against an IB decision will have to be available for employment only to the extent that their condition permits. In addition Clause 7(2) (b) of the Bill enables regulations to provide for certain circumstances to be taken into account in satisfying the actively seeking employment condition. Such circumstances will have to be taken into account in determining whether a person is taking such steps as he can reasonably be expected to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment. The Bill lists physical and mental limitations as relevant circumstances. I can give an explicit assurance that we shall make regulations which cover these circumstances.
I also remind noble Lords that if a claimant or partner would be entitled to a disability premium or has an underlying medical condition which would put them at risk, payment of JSA can be made at any time that hardship can be demonstrated, even when the claimant is not actively seeking work.
As I have said many times, we shall also continue to offer people with physical and mental conditions all the general and specialist facilities which the Employment Service has at its disposal. Putting this all together, I trust it can be seen that we shall offer a sensitive and helpful environment to all those on JSA who have a mental or physical condition whether or not they are appealing against an IB decision.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that we recognise the difficulties encountered by people with disabilities. I have spoken at some length because I believe it is an important subject and I know that my noble friend and other noble Lords feel strongly about it. I hope that what I have said will persuade those who are deeply interested in the subject that we have taken into account and given consideration to the special needs

465
of particular groups about whom my noble friend is concerned in his amendment. I hope that having listened to my explanation he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he able to answer the question I put to him, as did the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about the Government's estimate of the number of people who will qualify for hardship payments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give that answer now. I will look into the matter and write to my noble friend and to the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Government are very slowly moving towards the ideas that we hold. However, it is like trying to drain Loch Lomond by the misuse of a quaich. It is very hard, slow work. My noble friend did not address the administrative point that was raised by me and by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, that employment offices will be absolutely swamped with appeals and it would therefore be administratively much safer and better to deal with disabled people as actively seeking work pending the appeal.
I shall have to read with great care my noble friend's response on Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B. My objective, as I am sure he realises, is to prevent disabled people from falling between two stools. At the moment I have the feeling that both stools are in the cupboard and not available for use and that at the same time my noble friend is actively plying the plane, narrowing down each stool while I am busy trying to get them out of the cupboard. I shall look very carefully at what my noble friend said, but I have a strong feeling that I shall be returning to these matters at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 31B not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Refugees etc
. A person who is a refugee within the definition in Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and as extended by Article 1(2) of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31st January 1967 or has been granted exceptional leave to remain by the Secretary of State; and

(i) is attending for more than 15 hours a week a course for the purpose of learning English so that he may obtain, or improve his prospects of obtaining, employment; and

(ii) on the date on which the course commenced, had been in Great Britain for not more than 24 months, or had been granted leave, as defined in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, not more than 12 months previously;

shall be treated as available for employment under section 6 and as actively seeking employment under section 7 but only for a period not exceeding nine months.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, refugees are in the main highly motivated and often skilled individuals. Their problem on arriving in this country is how they can adapt their skills to the British job market. One of the key elements in equipping themselves to compete in the job market is the ability to learn English. Without access to education, the prospects for refugees are either
466
no job at all or a poorly paid job well below their skills and abilities and possibly their previous training. Adapting to the job market in this country is the key. That means the opportunity to learn English. I contend that at the moment the scales are tipped very much against refugees. I seek an opportunity in this amendment to demonstrate that simple proposition.
The situation is made even worse by the change in the hours rule—the reduction in the permitted hours of study while actively seeking work from 21 to 16. It is also indirectly made worse by the new provisions that asylum seekers, before they are given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, may now be charged overseas levels of fees and are to be treated by colleges as overseas students. Colleges have a discretion, but the effect may well be that while people who have come to this country seeking safety are waiting for their status to be determined, the level of overseas fees will debar them from study altogether. Effectively, therefore, when they are given a status that enables them to stay here, they are left with the difficulty of not being able to move into colleges because of the other restrictions upon them.
This amendment is extremely modest. It refers to a period of up to nine months during which such people should be regarded as being available for work or actively seeking work. My purpose is to seek the understanding of the Government. Perhaps I may anticipate the Minister's response. It may well be that, technically, my amendment is not appropriate or correct, and that I should seek to amend the provisions regarding income support rather than JSA. I appreciate that point. I seek from the Government some understanding of the dilemma and an opportunity to move forward on the issue. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, today, 50 years after VE Day, seems a very important moment to recognise the debt this country owes to its refugees. Recently, I attended a degree giving ceremony at the University of London. One of the people awarded an honorary degree was the woman who organised the influx of academic refugees in the years after 1939. That was an enormous job of work, and the degree was very well earned. Being given honorary degrees with her were two former refugees she had helped to bring into the country and get settled. They are both now Nobel Prize winners. There were also two children of the refugees whom she had helped to settle. That is a pretty substantial gain for this country from the work of one person. And that is true not only in this country. At Yale I worked in a department where some 25 per cent. of the members were refugees from Hitler. That is a colossal concentration of talent. This country does not always remember to what extent it has cause to be grateful.
It is perfectly common for refugees, when they arrive, to have either no English or very limited English. The United States has the same experience. Its success in handling the problem is a measure of its success as a country. Limited capacity in English is a problem. We are always coming up against it when we discuss restricted availability for work. It causes a great many problems and gives the benefits system a great many headaches. Therefore if refugees can be taught English, that is a good public object. It is in the public interest

467
by all possible criteria. However, while they are being taught English they must eat, and that involves some visible means of support. We do not need to insist that JSA is necessarily the right vehicle, or that a specific statutory provision is necessarily the only way of doing it.
There are a number of ways in which the Minister could handle this question. He might prefer to do so through income support. He might prefer, as the Government have hitherto handled the question of women in refuges, the prerogative of mercy tucked into the availability rules; namely, the provision that people may be regarded as available or not available. That is one perfectly practical approach. Or he might adopt the method provided by the amendment. We do not insist that it should be done in one particular way. We believe, however, that it should be done in one way or another. It is not merely in the interests of claimants, but in the interests of this country, and of a wider civilisation of which we are all part.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I support this very modest amendment, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. To echo what the noble Earl has just said, it is indeed in the interests of this country, and in its economic interests over a very short time. Not so many migrants have come into Liverpool in recent years because jobs have been very short. But it happens that a substantial Somali community has settled there. That is why I am prompted to speak. A high proportion of those people do not speak English. My information is that the community includes people who are very gifted in different professions and skills. The language barrier blocks them totally. If, for reasons of our crude, selfish advantage, they are not helped to get through that barrier, they may in the long term become a drain on the benefits system of this country. If, however, they are helped through the educational barrier, they will make a very substantial contribution.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to make just one additional point. When I was a Minister at the Home Office, one of our responsibilities was to deal with the influx of East African Asians who had left their country very suddenly and arrived in this country with very little knowledge of it and, in many cases, had not visited it before. Those people have made a tremendous contribution to this country and have become economically a very significant group.
What often characterises refugees is that they are either exceptionally enterprising or exceptionally courageous people. In many cases either they have stood up against an unacceptable political regime or they have shown a degree of enterprise which is unusual in the country from which they have come. Therefore, as the right reverend Prelate said, they make a great contribution to this country.
There is one other strictly practical point that I should like to put to the Minister. Over the past year the United Kingdom has accepted about 1,000 refugees from Bosnia. I understand that consideration is being given
468
to whether more refugees from that country should be accepted. Very few people in Bosnia speak any English. It is not even the first foreign language of that country. Therefore, if we are to be fair to those people and give them a real chance to settle in this country, make a contribution to it, and begin to rebuild their shattered lives, this kind of relatively modest amendment allows them the opportunity to do so.
In the great tradition of this country, which has always welcomed refugees and regards that as one of the tests of a truly libertarian country, I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to support briefly the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. What I like about the amendment is the general principle in it, which goes beyond refugees, although it speaks only of refugees; namely, that we ought to help people acquire skills to enable them to integrate into the community and to seek jobs. That is very important. That applies not only to refugees but to many ethnic groups and especially to the women. Many ethnic minorities have the same need. At some stage we shall have to say that we ought actively to help people to learn the language so that they can integrate into the community and become economically useful as well.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, let me begin by saying that the Government recognise that special rules within the benefit system are necessary for some refugees who have recently entered the country and who wish to undertake an English language course to improve their prospects of employment.
Such special rules currently exist in income support legislation. Refugees, who have been in Great Britain for not more than 12 months, and who are attending a course of more than 15 hours a week for the purpose of learning English, are able to receive income support for up to nine months without being required to be available for work. I suspect that the Bosnian refugees whom we have allowed to come here as refugees would certainly fall into that category.
I believe this is a generous provision. It allows refugees who are undertaking a full-time English course to continue to receive benefit. It is also much more generous treatment than applies to other claimants who, as your Lordships will know, are not able to receive income support or JSA if they are studying full-time. This income support provision will continue when JSA is in place. There is therefore no need to provide for the kind of treatment available in JSA which this amendment suggests.
If I heard him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, however, argued that his amendment, which would provide for even more generous treatment in JSA, as I said, is necessary because the current provisions do not go far enough on two grounds. Perhaps I may address those concerns in turn.
First, there are the people given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, the current provisions provide for a distinction between refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain in the UK. Whether

469
someone is given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain is, of course, a decision made by the Home Office, and the distinction between the two is an important one.
No doubt I do not have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is a great expert on all these matters, about that distinction. But it may help your Lordships understand my argument if I say that exceptional leave to remain cannot be equated with refugee status, as it represents a temporary permission to stay in cases where it would be unreasonable or impracticable to enforce departure. Exceptional leave decisions can be reviewed. I do not believe that it would be right to blur this distinction by changing benefit rules so that we effectively upgraded exceptional leave status to refugee status. However, that does not mean that those given exceptional leave cannot study English. Like all other claimants, they will be able to study part-time without it affecting their benefit position.
The noble Lord understands that and that the 16 guided hours learning comes into that. I should point out to him that, although on the face of it it looks like a change from the 21 hours—we have had considerable debates on this issue as the Bill has proceeded—the two definitions are quite different. The guided hours learning takes account of the way in which further education has developed and has moved away from how we managed to define part-time courses previously. In fact, in the round, the same number of people will receive the easement which the up to 16 guided hours allows as were receiving the easement which the up to 21 hours rule allowed. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord when thinking about people with exceptional leave.
The noble Lord may also be concerned about the current 12-month rule, as part of this situation. We recognised that delays in decisions on refugee status were causing a problem for genuine refugees. That is why we introduced a package of measures, including the Asylum Bill, and a substantial increase of staff aimed at trying to reduce the delays. Those measures have allowed us to bring down the average decision time in new cases from 18 months to around eight months. If the problem still exists, I do not believe that extending the 12-month limit is the answer. In any case, refugees who become caught in that, so to speak, will still be able to study part-time up to 16 guided hours without it affecting their benefit once the 12-month period has expired.
I believe that the current rules operating in income support, which allow certain refugees to study English full-time, are generous and effective in helping members of that vulnerable group improve their employment prospects. They will also, as the noble Baroness said, help them to integrate into life in the United Kingdom. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would extend the provisions in a way which I do not believe can be justified.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord sufficient assurances about the continuation of the current rules in income support. I can assure him that we shall
470
certainly reflect on the points that he made. I hope that he can accept my assurances and will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I draw some comfort, but not overmuch, from what the Minister said. It would be wrong to trespass on the time of the House by going into a detailed set of answers to what he said. I shall limit myself to a couple of remaining concerns.
One concern is that, as I understand it, the special provisions mentioned by the Minister apply to asylum seekers before they are given their status. As he said, the waiting time for a decision to be made is now shorter than it was. I certainly welcome that. However, it means that the benefit that an asylum seeker receives is limited to the shorter time period. Given that asylum seekers often arrive shocked and traumatised by their experiences, they need a little more time to adjust in this country before they are able to take the step of working out their future and moving into education.
The Bosnian refugees, to whom reference was made earlier, are a case in point. I met some of them when they first arrived here. They had been detained, as it were, in Serb camps not long before they arrived in this country. Certainly they were very shocked and traumatised. Not many of them could have stepped into learning English all that quickly. But, now that they have been in this country a little longer, that is precisely what they want the opportunity to do. However, the Bosnians themselves, or many of them, have exceptional leave to remain or limited leave to remain. They are the very people who suffer from the distinction between refugee status and having exceptional leave to remain. I do not agree with the Minister when he wishes not to blur the distinction between the two. Although having exceptional leave to remain is not a permanent status, it has in the past been a status from which people have been able to benefit for quite some time and they have often been allowed to stay. To deny those people an opportunity to improve their English and to move into the job market, or to make it more difficult for them, is neither in their interests nor in the interests of this country.
I draw a little comfort, but only a little, from what the Minister said. Serious problems remain and I should like to return to this issue on a future occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 9 [The jobseeker's agreement]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 36, at beginning insert:
("( ) If a claimant fulfils section 1(2) (a) and (c) he shall be considered to be complying with the terms and conditions of a jobseekers agreement.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to a large group which includes Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 37, 40 to 59, and also Amendments Nos. 75, 78 and 83. I gave Ministers notice of the change in the grouping.
Lord Hay, one of the courtiers of King James VI of Scotland and I of England, was a great advocate of the principle of conspicuous consumption. He invented, in the course of his entertaining—which was lavish and based on the motto "Spend and the Lord will send"—the device of the "ante supper". Guests were brought in to supper and an enormous lavish feast was set out before them. Just as they were about to begin to eat the whole thing was taken away and an even more lavish supper was brought in instead of the "pathetically moderate display" that was put on the table when the guests first arrived. It was the most wonderful principle of ostentation. This group of amendments suggests that what we have before us is an ante Bill and that once it reaches the statute book it will be carried away and a whole new series of legislative principles, even more lavish and extreme, will come into force behind it.
I should say a word about the grouping before I go any further. The grouping includes a string of government amendments. I make no objection to any of those amendments; indeed, some of them were initially my amendments and the Government have put their name to them, for which I thank them warmly. The agenda may not be exactly identical in the two cases, but when one's amendment is accepted by the Government one cannot do other than welcome it with great gratitude.
My speaking to this group as a whole will not present any problem to Ministers when they wish to move their amendments. If I were to push this group to a Division the consequence would be that those government amendments would be agreed; but whether the Government, in those circumstances, would still agree with their own amendments is something we would have to wait to discover. But should I withdraw my amendment, or if it is pushed to a Division and not accepted, the government amendments could perfectly well stand on their own. They can easily be moved and I for one will not in any way oppose them. The grouping therefore will cause no problem.
The central principle of the group of amendments—here I express my gratitude to Anton Obholzer in our Whips' Office, who has done a superb job of work on them—is Amendment No. 33 which states:
"if a claimant fulfils section 1(2) (a) and (c) he shall be considered to be complying with the terms and conditions of a jobseekers agreement".
In fact, it seeks to ensure that the Bill only requires people to be available for employment and actively seeking employment; that all the detail should be left to traditional interpretation rather than being set out in a plethora of new terms and conditions which will come in after the Bill reaches the statute book.
There are two key clauses to be considered and all the rest of our amendments are contingent and consequential upon them. Amendment No. 34 to Clause 9(1) proposes to delete the words that a jobseeker's agreement,
"complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made".
472
That is legislation in the future perfect. The future perfect is no doubt an amusing tense with which to play games, but it is a rather dangerous one for legislation. It is a tense which is necessarily contingent. I know of only one time when it was used for serious legislation, which was the Coronation Oath of King Edward II who was made to swear to accept such good laws as the community of the realm "shall have chosen". It was construed by his barons as being an abolition of the royal veto. The king naturally did not agree and ended up being deposed. So legislation in the future perfect is capable of creating serious problems because one is agreeing to one knows not what. Clause 9(1) allows for the taking away of the ante supper and the bringing in of the new supper; the more lavish display, the contents of which we cannot even now guess at.
The next thing we want to do is to delete Clause 18(5), which is something else that the Minister can bring in by regulation. The clause states:
"The circumstances referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are that the claimant … has, without good cause, refused or failed to carry out any jobseeker's direction which was reasonable, having regard to his circumstances".
Subject only to the uncertain test of "reasonableness", it is self guided by regulations which we have not yet seen. The jobseeker's direction can tell the jobseeker to do pretty well whatever it likes. It is within the classic definition of an arbitrary power.
The same clause also allows regulations to deal with a claimant who has, without good cause,
"neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a training scheme or employment programme".
There is provision, therefore, for the possibility of bringing in compulsory training—for adults as well I believe. I do not know what may come in under that. There is much more which I shall not deal with at this time. Noble Lords can look for themselves at the rest of Clause 18(5).
We are told in the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in their exposition of what they want to do with Clause 9, that they intend to use it to introduce by regulation a substantial and systematic legislative framework. Your Lordships can see what brought me back to the idea of the ante supper. It is the substantial and systematic legislative framework which will be the real Bill; this Bill is only the ante supper and is not really of any importance. It is what is to be brought in afterwards, behind the curtain, which will be important.
That is why we want to bring the Bill back to the two basic conditions of entitlement; that the claimant should be "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment". We are prepared to leave the interpretation of that to the adjudication officer, to an appeal tribunal and ultimately to higher judicial authorities. It is a question which must be settled individually or it cannot be settled properly at all. The rest of our amendments are taking-out provisions to require a claimant to observe terms and conditions which are brought in by regulation.
It is hard enough to legislate in the present without trying to legislate in the future perfect as well. Let us give it up. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope that it may be of assistance to the House to explain the Government's position generally and their amendments which I shall move, and to speak to the noble Earl's amendments which he has already spoken to. In his opening remarks, he referred to the eating habits of the 17th century epicurean, Lord Hay, and his dinners. Just as he had a fore-dinner, I hope that my speech will succeed it as the main dinner.
In Committee on 11th May the Government brought forward important amendments to those parts of the Bill which deal with availability for employment and actively seeking employment. Your Lordships were pleased to approve these, and they now form part of the Bill.
In introducing those amendments, my noble friend the Minister said that we would also be tabling amendments to the clauses dealing with the jobseeker's agreement and variations to the jobseeker's agreement, now Clauses 9 and 10. Noble Lords will have seen from the Marshalled List that we have met this commitment. These amendments are proposed in the same spirit as the government amendments that your Lordships considered in Committee and approved on 11th May, and we hope they will be welcomed by the House in the same way.
I should like to begin by explaining briefly the thinking behind these amendments. As my noble friend the Minister made clear in Committee, we fully understand the concern to secure the right balance between primary and secondary legislation. As your Lordships are aware, we have taken careful note of the report and recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The committee's final report did riot make any recommendations in respect of the clauses dealing with the jobseeker's agreement. But we have considered the views expressed in the committee's interim report. We have re-examined carefully the clauses that deal with the jobseeker's agreement with the view that new provisions, and, in particular, new decision-making procedures, should be specified on the face of the Bill.
If I may, I should now like to say a few words about the purpose of the jobseeker's agreement and how we intend that it will work in practice. The jobseeker's agreement is central to JSA. It will be the means of ensuring that every jobseeker has a plan to help him back to work. It will also ensure that every jobseeker understands clearly the conditions of receiving JSA and the nature of the help that they can receive from the Employment Service.
At the start of his claim for JSA, the jobseeker will have an interview with a skilled employment adviser (this is the person called, more formally, the "Employment Officer" in the Bill). The jobseeker and the employment adviser will discuss the jobseeker's work experience and qualifications, the sort of work he is looking for, his availability and his plans for getting back to work and a range of other issues. Together, they will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement.
The agreement will set out what sort of work the jobseeker is looking for and what he is going to do to find it. For example, it will record the number of job
474
applications and visits to the Jobcentre he is going to make, and any other steps that have been agreed, such as drawing up a CV or researching potential employers. It will also record details of his availability and any agreed restrictions. For example, if he is a carer, the agreement will record that he has to be available only at 48 hours' notice, as we have already discussed this afternoon.
The agreement is an important way of ensuring that jobseekers understand right from the outset the conditions of receiving JSA, and how their benefit may be affected if they do not satisfy those conditions. It will contain a statement that the jobseeker understands that he must continue to be available for employment and actively seek it; that he may be asked to give evidence of what he has done and has been advised to keep a record; and that if he does not do enough to meet these conditions, his allowance may be affected and his case will be referred to the adjudication officer, in which case he will be informed. He will also be told about his right of appeal.
The agreement will also set out the nature of the help back to work available from the Employment Service. It will explain that Jobcentres display up-to-date details of job vacancies and that the Employment Service will not display vacancies which discriminate against jobseekers on the grounds of race, religion, sex or disability, and that people of all ages will be encouraged to apply; that the Jobcentre can offer information about opportunities on employment and training programmes and schemes to help people become self-employed; that when the jobseeker attends the Jobcentre, his progress in getting back to work will be reviewed with an employment adviser; that wherever possible, the jobseeker will see the same person who understands his circumstances, or someone from the same team; that he will also be able to receive information about other social security benefits, including in-work benefits.
When the jobseeker and the employment adviser have drawn up the agreement, they should both sign it. The jobseeker will thus have an agreement in force and will have satisfied the condition of entitlement contained in Clause 1(2) (b) of the Bill. The jobseeker will be given a copy of the agreement and the original will be kept in the office. It will be used as a basis for discussing the jobseeker's progress in finding work when he attends the office.
If at any point the jobseeker or the employment adviser feel that the agreement needs to be changed, they can suggest this. Again, they will discuss the situation and draw up what is called a "variation" to the agreement. We envisage that variations will be needed in particular if the jobseeker is still unemployed at the end of his permitted period, when he will be required to widen the range of jobs he is available and looking for beyond his usual occupation and rate of remuneration. Variations may also be needed from time to time to respond to changes in the labour market or the jobseeker's circumstances. For instance, if the jobseeker has gained a new qualification, he may find that this opens up new job opportunities. Equally, if, for

475
example, a jobseeker has been looking for driving work but loses his licence, he will have to refocus his search for work on other occupations.
We have heard from time to time that the jobseeker's agreement will be forced on jobseekers. I hope I have reassured your Lordships that it will in fact be the outcome of a dialogue between the jobseeker and the employment adviser. But we recognise that it may not in all cases be possible for the jobseeker and the employment adviser to reach agreement. As Ministers have explained repeatedly in this House and in the other place, that is why the Bill provides an extensive procedure for independent adjudication and appeal. Again, at the risk of trying the House's patience, I should like to explain this briefly.
The jobseeker and the employment adviser will be able to refer a proposed agreement or variation to an independent adjudication officer. I should say at this point that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the honourable Member for Withington in the other place, for their suggestions earlier in the passage of the Bill that the referral to the adjudication officer should be made "forthwith". This is now provided in the Bill.
Adjudication officers carry out their functions independently of Government under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and receive guidance on carrying out their adjudication duties from the chief adjudication officer, not the Secretary of State. When he receives a proposed agreement or variation, the adjudication officer will consider it and determine whether, if the jobseeker complied with it, he would satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA; and whether it is reasonable to expect him to have to comply with it. If the jobseeker or the employment adviser is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's determination, either may seek to have it reviewed by a different adjudication officer. If the jobseeker is still dissatisfied, he, but not the employment adviser, will have the right of appeal to the social security appeal tribunal; and thence to the commissioner on a point of law.
We recognise that the agreement is a new feature of benefits for unemployed people, and we have therefore provided a number of features in the adjudication procedure over and above the standard procedure set out in the Administration Act. First, the adjudication officer will be able to direct the employment adviser to enter into an agreement on such terms as he considers appropriate. If, for example, the adjudication officer considers that both the jobseeker's and the employment adviser's proposals are unacceptable, he may suggest terms which he considers appropriate rather than simply rejecting what is put to him. The employment adviser will be required to enter into an agreement on the basis put forward by the adjudication officer. This is a constructive provision, wholly to the jobseeker's advantage.
Secondly, the adjudication officer will be able to backdate a jobseeker's agreement. For example, if he considers that the jobseeker's proposals were acceptable
476
all along, he will be able to back-date the agreement to the start of the claim; or, if appropriate, he will be able to back-date it to an intermediate point.
Thirdly, there is the provision that I have already mentioned for a review by a second adjudication officer before the case goes to the social security appeal tribunal. The intention of this is that cases will be dealt with quickly and simply. It will be to the advantage of the jobseeker to be able to have his case dealt with in this way. But of course, as I have made clear, if he is still dissatisfied after the review, he will be able to appeal to the social security appeal tribunal.
Finally, the adjudication officer will be able to bring a jobseeker's agreement to an end where the jobseeker fails to comply within a prescribed period with the adjudication officer's decision that his agreement should be varied. This will prevent the jobseeker from being able to keep to the original agreement indefinitely when the adjudication officer has decided that his agreement must be varied.
Your Lordships have been very patient in listening to this explanation. I should now like to turn to the government amendments themselves, Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56 and 59 on today's list. I am pleased to see that in several cases the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear, have tabled amendments which are identical to the Government's. It is clear that they, too, have been considering the Scrutiny Committee's interim report and are suggesting to the Government exactly the same means of meeting it as we are indeed proposing. I am glad of that. I think it shows this House at its best when, on a non-partisan basis, we try to work towards common solutions.
The amendments appear extensive in the sense that there are many words on the page. But that is largely a matter of drafting. They are actually quite simple in their intent. They go to the heart of what I have said about the Government's response to your Lordships' concerns about the balance between primary and secondary legislation.
Clauses 9 and 10 contain a number of regulation-making powers. We have re-examined each of these carefully with a view to seeing whether or not the powers could be removed and the provisions could be put on the face of the Bill. I would like to set out our main conclusions. First, Clauses 9(8) and 10(5) at present enable regulations to provide for a proposed jobseeker's agreement or proposed variation to be referred to the adjudication officer. It has always been our intention to make these regulations. We have given commitments to this effect to both Houses and in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Our purpose in proposing to deal with these matters through regulations was to provide sufficient flexibility to deal with detailed procedural matters. But we have decided on reflection that it is not necessary for this to be provided through regulations and that these are matters which can be dealt with in primary legislation. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 40 and 51.

477
Secondly, Clause 9(9) (b) at present provides that regulations may provide criteria to which the adjudication officer is to have regard in making his determination. Noble Lords have asked us what those criteria will be. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and his colleagues have tabled Amendment No. 46 on today's Marshalled List which addresses this very issue. We have always made clear that the criteria—the only criteria—will be those set out in the provisions of Clause 9(8) (a) and (b) and repeated in those of Clause 10(5) (a) and (b). As I have explained, these are: whether the proposed agreement (or variation) would allow the jobseeker, if he complied with it, to satisfy the availability for employment and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA; and whether it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the proposed agreement.
Noble Lords have rightly asked why, if those were the only criteria that we had in mind and they were already on the face of the Bill, we needed the regulation-making power in Clause 9(9) (b). We want the JSA regulations to be as clear as possible. The current legislation on unemployment benefits is contained in many different regulations. JSA offers an opportunity to consolidate the legislation. Setting out the criteria in the regulations so that all the key provisions on the adjudication of the agreement can be found in one piece of legislation would make it easier for those who administer JSA and for jobseekers and advisory organisations. But we understand the concern that this provision has provoked. We propose, therefore, that it should be removed altogether and your Lordships will see that it does not appear in Amendment No. 45.
Thirdly, Clause 9(9) (c) provides that regulations may provide for the adjudication officer to make his determination before the end of a prescribed period. Our intention here was to ensure that adjudication matters are dealt with promptly. That is in the jobseeker's interest. We proposed, therefore, a power to set a time-limit in regulations. As the memorandum made clear, we believed that regulations would provide the flexibility to deal with different circumstances. On re-examination, however, we have concluded that we can put this on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 45 states that the adjudication officer
"shall so far as practicable dispose of it in accordance with this section before the end of the period of 14 days of the date of the reference".
I should point out that a drafting error has crept into subsection 9(a). The reference to,
"14 days of the date",
should read, "14 days from the date". There is a similar mistake in subsection 6(a) of Amendment No. 56. We propose to amend that on Third Reading. That brings this aspect of the Bill into line with Section 21 of the Social Security Administration Act. I hope that your Lordships will welcome that.
Fourthly, noble Lords, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular, have sought assurance that the jobseeker's agreement will not be capable of being used to impose individual conditions of entitlement on jobseekers. We have repeatedly given this assurance, pointing to the provisions in Clause 9(8) (a) and (b) and
478
Clause 10(5) (a) and (b), which I have already mentioned. This has always been our clear intention. It has not changed. On re-examination, however, we have concluded that the Bill could be drafted more clearly in this respect. In particular, we have decided that we should remove any scope that there might be for confusion between the terms and conditions of a jobseeker's agreement and the conditions of entitlement to JSA. That is the specific purpose of Amendments Nos. 37, 42, 43, 50, 53 and 54, and it is reflected in other amendments. As I have said, I am very pleased to see that, in the case of several of these, my noble friend the Minister's name has been joined with those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear.
Perhaps I may also draw your Lordships' attention to two small technical matters. In all but one respect, the purpose of Amendment No. 56 is to make the changes that I have already explained. The minor exception is subsections (6) (b) and (c) of the amendment, which deal with the procedure by which the adjudication officer will be able to direct that an agreement should be varied and bring it to an end if the jobseeker fails to comply with that direction. Those provisions make no changes of substance to the equivalent existing provisions of Clause 10(6) (b) and (c) of the Bill. But we consider that the drafting of these provisions is a little unclear in some respects and we have dealt with that in this amendment in order to avoid any possibility of confusion.
I should also mention that, if carried, the amendments will result in an additional clause in the Bill. Currently, Clause 9 deals with the jobseeker's agreement; Clause 10 deals with variations; and matters connected with reviews and appeals are dealt with in both clauses. In an effort again to make the Bill as clear as possible, we are proposing that Clause 9 will deal with the agreement; Clause 10 with variations; and Clause 11, introduced by Amendment No. 59, with reviews and appeals. This is a matter of drafting and involves no changes of substance other than those that I have already explained.
There is one final point that I would like to make before sitting down. The changes that we are proposing to make to these clauses will result in a genuine and substantial reduction in the number of regulation-making powers. I do not wish to get into a counting exercise, but noble Lords will be able to see for themselves that that is the case. The small number of regulation-making powers that will be retained by the amendments are needed to deal with very specific and generally procedural matters.
I turn now to the amendments. I hope that I shall cover them all comprehensively. On Amendment No. 33, the noble Earl, Lord Russell is, I think, once again seeking reassurance. I am entirely happy, once again, to offer him and the noble Baroness that reassurance. We believe that the amendment is quite unnecessary. As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, the jobseeker's agreement is a supportive measure intended to help each jobseeker to decide how he should best tackle returning to work and then set that out. I can reassure your Lordships that it certainly does not impose

479
additional eligibility conditions, and neither the employment officer nor the independent adjudication officer will be able to impose individual conditions of benefit.
The agreement will give expression to the steps the jobseeker has agreed to take to find work, and the terms on which he is prepared to be available for work. It will act as a reminder of the discussion with the employment officer and what he has agreed to do to meet the availability and actively seeking entitlement conditions.
Once the jobseeker has an agreement in force, the key to his continued receipt of jobseeker's allowance will, however, be the actual steps that he takes to find work, and his actual availability for employment. The agreement will be used to help to establish that jobseekers meet the conditions of availability and active seeking, but abiding by the precise letter of what is in his agreement will not be the test of whether someone continues to meet the conditions.
That is an important point, and it is right that your Lordships should have focused on it, now and previously. I hope that it will reassure your Lordships to note that in the revised Clause 9 which we have tabled, we have removed the power to prescribe criteria against which an adjudication officer should make a determination about a disputed agreement. The reference was never intended to add to the eligibility conditions, but we understand the concern that it provoked. We have, therefore, done away with the reference specifically to make it absolutely clear that there is no question of the agreement setting different standards of availability and actively seeking conditions than are applied by the basic condition.
We are in the business of helping as many people as possible back to work as quickly as possible. We do not intend to tie up their efforts with unnecessary red tape. To introduce the concept of complying with the jobseeker's agreement into the Bill would, in fact, be to add an additional requirement, and I am sure that the noble Earl would not want that. Employment and adjudication officers would want to know what would happen if the jobseeker were to fail to comply with an agreement. That is not a requirement we want or need to introduce.
I hope that the noble Earl and the noble Baronesses are reassured by my explanation, and by the government amendments that have been tabled in relation to the jobseeker's agreement and to which I have referred. By far the greater part of the provisions relating to the jobseeker's agreement, with the exception of minor technicalities, is now part of the primary legislation in this Bill.
Turning to the other amendments, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of Amendment No. 34. I was curious to know what concerns there could be about the detailed provisions of the agreement.
I should like to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords that that power is benign. Our intention is to make regulations that set out what will be needed to constitute an agreement—broadly speaking, the headings that it will contain.
480
The intention is to include things such as the jobseeker's name, his availability, the sort of work he is looking for, any period that is agreed in which he can restrict his availability and jobsearch to his normal occupation and rate of pay and a dated signature of both the jobseeker and the employment officer.
I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured that the regulations under subsection (1) will be used only to clarify the requirements of the agreement, and not to add any additional requirements. Our purpose is only to provide clarity as to what constitutes an agreement, and to ensure that agreements are made in a standard form.
Perhaps I may thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his explanation of Amendment No. 36. I am sure that he is satisfied that the Bill would benefit from the additional definitions that subsection would bring. I must, however, assure him, and other noble Lords, that not only is it unnecessary but it is also in some respects misconceived.
As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, the jobseeker's agreement is a supportive measure intended to help each jobseeker decide how he should best tackle returning to work. I can reassure your Lordships that it certainly does not impose additional eligibility conditions, and neither the employment officer nor the independent adjudication officer will be able to impose individual conditions of entitlement to benefit.
The agreement will give expression to the steps the jobseeker has agreed to take to find work, and the terms upon which he is prepared to be available for work. It will act as a reminder of the discussion with the employment officer and what he has agreed to do to meet the availability and actively seeking entitlement conditions. The phrase "terms and conditions" as used on the face of the Bill means nothing other than the contents of the agreement.
As I have explained previously, once the jobseeker has an agreement in force, the key to his continued receipt of jobseeker's allowance will be the actual steps that he takes to find work, and his actual availability for employment. The agreement will be used to help to establish that jobseekers meet the conditions of availability and active seeking, but abiding by the precise letter of what is in his agreement will not be the test of whether someone continues to meet the conditions. For example, if a person states in his agreement that the will apply for jobs in a factory, there is nothing to stop him from applying for jobs in the local supermarket as long as he continues to satisfy the actively seeking test. No one could possibly want that to be the case. The amendment is therefore misconceived.
I hope that it will reassure your Lordships to note that in the revised Clause 9 that we have tabled we have in any event removed the references to the "terms and conditions" of an agreement. The reference was never intended to be confused with the eligibility conditions, but we understand the concern that it provoked. We have, therefore, done away with the reference specifically to make it absolutely clear.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 41 and 52, I made the Government's position on that issue clear in the earlier debate. We agree with the noble Earl, Lord

481
Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear, that the Bill should be amended to remove any scope for confusion between the terms and conditions of the jobseeker's agreement and the conditions of entitlement to JSA. We have dealt with that in a series of amendments.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 44 and 55, it is clear from the range of amendments tabled that clarification is sought of the distinction between the phrases "terms and conditions" of the jobseeker's agreement and the "conditions of entitlement to JSA".
As I explained earlier when introducing the government amendments the intention has always been clear but we have recognised that the drafting of those provisions gave rise to some concern. Our amendments have dealt with that by replacing references to the "terms and conditions" of an agreement with "terms" or simply "the proposed agreement". I was pleased that those amendments received cross-party support.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 55 raise a related issue upon which I should like to spend a few minutes. As I have already explained to the House, the Bill provides that the adjudication officer will consider two matters. Would the proposals allow the jobseeker, if he complied with them, to meet the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA? And is it reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the proposed agreement?
To be clear, what the Bill is saying here is that it is possible that the proposed agreement would allow the jobseeker, if he complied with it, to satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. But the adjudication officer will be able to determine that it would be unreasonable to expect him to have to comply with the agreement. That offers an important protection to the jobseeker.
Take, for example, a proposed agreement which stated that the jobseeker would apply for 90 jobs a week. Applying for 90 jobs a week would clearly enable him to meet the actively seeking employment condition, but it would be unreasonable to expect him to have to do so. Or, take the example of a proposed agreement which stated that a declared anti-vivisectionist would be available for jobs as an assistant in a laboratory that uses animals for its testing. Again, that would be unreasonable because there are many other types of job for which the jobseeker could be available in order to meet the availability condition.
In both those cases, the adjudication officer would be able to determine that it was unreasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the agreement. He would be able to suggest changes to make the agreement reasonable and the employment officer would have to enter into an agreement on the basis upon which the adjudication officer has directed.
That is the distinction that the Bill is making here. These amendments, however, suggest that, in considering the proposed agreement, the adjudication officer should determine whether it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. That is a different question. We have had
482
extensive debates on the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. I do riot propose to reopen that issue now.
I hope and believe that I have covered comprehensively the various points contained in the amendments tabled by the noble Earl. I hope that we have made our position clear and that that will reassure those who have tabled the amendments so that they may feel able not to move them and to support the Government's amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question about his amendments. New Clause 11 provides that any determination of an adjudication officer under that clause shall be binding. However Amendment No. 59 states:
"Any determination of, or direction given by, an adjudication officer…may be reviewed (by a different adjudication officer) on the application of the claimant or of an employment officer".
There is then a procedure for review and appeal, which I welcome. If that is so, should not new Clause 11 contain a rider to the effect that it is binding, subject to the provisions of the new clause put forward in Amendment No. 59? Otherwise, it looks as though the adjudication officer makes a final decision, and that is it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that point to our attention. We shall look at it, and, if the problem is as she described, we shall respond accordingly.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, am I right in understanding that since he spoke early to assist the House and to open his own amendments, it is still in order for other noble Lords to speak if they wish?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, indeed, that is the point of the exercise.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full, if rather rapid, exposition of the Government's amendments, which I have done my best to follow. I hope that he will forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question, but it would be helpful to have an explanation as it is one of the key reasons why my noble friends Lord Russell and Lady Seear and I tabled this group of amendments. I am referring to subsections (9) and (10) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and, in particular to the adjudication officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said—he went a long way towards reassuring me—that one of the purposes of the long government amendment was to deal with the original part of the Bill we found objectionable; in particular, the possibility of the regulations laying down criteria.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but I did not properly understand to which subsection she was referring, and so it is pointless going on.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I was going at the Minister's own speed in order to satisfy the Government Whip. If she will he merciful to me, I shall take it a bit more slowly. Subsection (9) of Amendment No. 45 deals, among other things, with regulations being able to prescribe the criteria that the adjudication officer must have in mind. As the Minister said, one of the matters that my noble friend and I found objectionable was the possibility that, by regulation, criteria for adjudication could be added. The Minister said —I think with considerable understanding of our worries—that there was never an intention to add to the criteria the adjudication officer would have to bear in mind, thereby qualifying to some extent his or her own independence.
The new clause appears to meet most of our objections. However, one worry remains with me and perhaps the Minister can put my mind at rest. Subsection (10) in Amendment No. 45 reads:
"Regulations may provide … for such matters as may be prescribed to be taken into account by an adjudication officer in giving a direction under subsection (9) (c)".
My concern is that that could be a complex way of reinstating the issue of adding to the criteria which the adjudication officer must bear in mind. It may be that the wording fully meets the point. However, on a simple woman's reading of it, I am not sure that it does.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am always suspicious when I hear simple women's questions—and simple men's questions too. I understand that the clause is to enable the adjudication officer, when a reference is made to him, to propose an agreement for the parties to enter. I understand that in doing so he will be in the same position as the parties were when they first began discussing the matter. The purpose of the clause is to enable the adjudication officer to operate within exactly the same constraints as regards the agreement as the employment officer would have had to operate at first instance.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, that sounds a little like, "If I say no I mean yes; if I say yes I mean no", which we came to earlier in our discussions today. I shall ponder upon what the Minister has said and, if I do not fully understand it, I shall ask my noble friend to return to the matter at a later stage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Obviously, I must read it in considerable detail and I suspect that I must read it more than once. I found it very helpful as far as it went. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his comments on the phrase "terms and conditions". He penetrated exactly what was in my mind when I tabled the amendments and I have never been quite so glad to be told that I was confused. On that point, the confusion is now entirely clarified.
I was also extremely grateful to the Minister for his examples, which I found entirely helpful. I am not certain that I was so entirely convinced by his replies to
484
my own amendments. In respect of Amendment No. 34, Clause 9(1), I was reassured by the Minister's exposition of the Government's intentions. I was particularly reassured to be told that my amendments are unnecessary. As your Lordships know, the Government have two categories of amendment; the unnecessary and the wrecking. If I had been told that this was a wrecking amendment, I should have been most anxious indeed. However, as I am told that it is an unnecessary amendment I am a great deal less anxious.
I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance that the powers are in their intention benign. I wish to draw his attention to the fact that before we are through a little further drafting might be helpful. I can see nowhere in Clause 9(1) a statement to the effect that any requirements necessarily must be benign. However good the Government's present intentions may be, this Government or any government will not be here for ever.
In the past the Minister has been a little unsympathetic to the argument about the powers of future governments. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee comments on precisely that issue. The House may wish to bear in mind, however, that whatever the current intention of the departments, the powers would remain capable of being used to make amendments of substance.
Being reassured about the Government's intentions is not necessarily the end of the matter. Leaving powers lying about is a little like leaving unexploded bombs or mines: one may not intend to detonate them but in 10 or 20 years some unsuspecting person may detonate them to devastating effect. Is there any possibility of the Government agreeing to tighten the wording of Clause 9(1) so as to bring it into line with their intentions, with which I shall not argue, as the Minister stated them?
Furthermore, I thought that the Government were a little unwise to use an argument from silence about the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee having made no criticism about the wording of Clause 9 as it stands. The Committee stated:
"There is nevertheless a strong argument that the bill is no more than a skeleton bill, in spite of the Departments' arguments as to why the powers are needed to the extent provided for. The Committee must accordingly draw to the attention of the House the extent of the powers Parliament is being asked to delegate to Ministers".
With a general remark such as that, I would have thought that to make an argument ex silentio based on the words of the Committee is of very little weight.
But the Minister has said much for which I owe him nothing but thanks. Proceeding any further tonight would be inappropriate. I shall ask him to bear in mind the possibility of tightening the wording of Clause 9(1). I may wish to return to the matter later when I have read carefully what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("officer") to second ("is") in line 38, and insert ("whereby the claimant agrees to carry out a set of reasonable jobseeking activities in return for the provision by the employment officer of appropriate assistance, including relevant training or jobsearch schemes,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a long debate and have dealt with 24 amendments. For a long time the parties involved in the debate were arguing about which amendment would be pre-dinner and which would be after dinner. If we do not take this amendment at fair lick, I do not suppose that there will be any dinner—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot call the dinner break or adjournment for pleasure until 7.30 p.m., so it is up to your Lordships—and they will get dinner.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does that mean that at 7.30 p.m. the noble Baroness will order me out of the House?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am glad about that. The amendment deals with the appalling Clause 9 and goes to precisely the same part of the clause as the previous amendment which was the subject of a marathon debate. We are trying to take out what we regard to be a largely meaningless phrase. It is:
"and which complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made".
We wish to include words that are more precise and relevant to the central problem facing the jobseeker. We wish to put on the face of the Bill in place of the largely meaningless phrase which now appears a provision in respect of the jobseeker's agreement which states:
"whereby the claimant agrees to carry out a set of reasonable jobseeking activities in return for the provision by the employment officer of appropriate assistance, including relevant training or jobsearch schemes".
That is intended to make the agreement a real agreement; a network of mutual obligations. As was said by Members on this side of the House when a similar amendment was moved in Committee, that is what an agreement is supposed to be. The Oxford English Dictionary states that an agreement is "A mutual understanding; a reconciliation; a covenant; a treaty; a contract; an accord which produces a harmony of interest after an interchange or exchange". That is what an agreement is and that is what we want the jobseeker's agreement to be. When a similar amendment was moved in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the jobseeker's agreement,
"will set out what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the availability for work and actively seeking employment conditions of the JSA".
The jobseeker, he said, could propose terms so that the procedure was not entirely one-sided but if there was no agreement there was adjudication plus a defined series of appeals. Our point is that if there is adjudication, it will be on terms prescribed by the employment officer, the terms which he suggests are a reasonable JSA. I
486
believe that if one reads what was said by the noble Lord on that occasion he accepted our point because he went on to say:
"The Opposition want something very different. They want to use the agreement as a means of placing specific, perhaps almost contractual, responsibilities on the employment officer".
We accept that. We should like the employment officer to have a responsibility to help and we should like that prescription of responsibility to be on the face of the Bill.
The Minister said that,
"it cannot be right that the individual employment officer should be bound to provide specific help".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 895.]
I suggest now—and I would have suggested it at the time had it not been so late—that the Minister knows better than that. He knows that we are not asking for professional help or requiring that to be specified precisely on the face of the Bill. The help, if help there be, would be given by the Employment Service as a whole, not by individual employment officers.
Therefore, we are asking why there should not be a commitment to some kind of exchange—a set of reasonable jobseeking activities agreed by the jobseeker and, on the Employment Service side, what we call appropriate assistance in training, jobsearch and so on.
The difference arises when we come to adjudication. We argue that the jobseeker would be strengthened a little, but not over-strengthened. He can argue that what he has been asked to do is not appropriate or reasonable. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider that. If the amendment cannot be accepted, I ask the Government to tell us whether it would be possible to include something of that sort in the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the jobseeker's agreement is being introduced to help jobseekers discuss, agree and set out their best route back to work. It will be a useful tool for each jobseeker in his search for work and will allow him to focus on the steps that he has agreed to take to find work and any restrictions that he has placed on his availability.
Each agreement will set out the jobseeker's intentions in terms of availability and actively seeking employment. The form of the agreement will also include a section which explains the help which the Employment Service offers to all jobseekers in their efforts to find work. The point about that is that the inherent obligations of the Employment Service are founded in statute rather than on a contractual relationship with the jobseeker in question. The agreement will not, and could not, stipulate in advance and in precise detail what help will be offered to individual jobseekers at particular points in their claim. Each jobseeker will have access to the full range of government help to assist in getting him back to work. That will be offered by the appropriate employment officer at the appropriate point in the claim and will depend on the needs that the jobseeker and the employment officer have identified at that time.
It seems to us that the amendment suggests that the employment officer should offer specific assistance as part of the agreement. We believe that that could

487
become cumbersome. The effect, which I am sure we all agree is undesirable, would be that whenever the Employment Service's support to the jobseeker changed, it would become necessary to seek a variation of the agreement to reflect that fact.
We return to the point we debated on the previous occasion to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred. The jobseeker's agreement is not a contract. The jobseeker is not compelled to do precisely what is in it each week and neither is it sensible to bind the Government to particular forms of assistance from the outset. The point is that JSA is a conditional benefit. It is important that claimants should understand that conditionality. That is what the agreement is for. It sets out what the claimant agrees to do to meet the conditions of benefit—no more and no less. What can be the difficulty with that? To me it is sensible that the claimant should have a clear view of what a particular claimant in particular circumstances needs to do to find work.
To some extent our debate has involved a series of semantic gymnastics but one point which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised related to the input which a jobseeker might have in the case of a dispute and adjudication about the agreement. We must return to the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made on an earlier amendment; namely, that there is power for the adjudication officer to bring forward his own proposals if, having heard both the jobseeker and the employment officer, he feels that a different arrangement from that proposed by either is appropriate. This system envisages the involvement of the jobseeker to a greater extent than has been the case hitherto. In that way we believe that the jobseeker will be able to play a full part in mapping out the steps that he should take to get back to work.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the amendment does not refer to specific assistance. If it did, something slightly different might be provided in regulations. I am saying to the Government that if they do not like our words, they should put in some other words, but for God's sake, put some words in.
Secondly, the Minister says that it is not a contract. That is right but, of course, if the jobseeker breaks it he does not receive the benefit. In that sense it is a contract. It is not a contract because there is nothing which the jobseeker can enforce against the Employment Service. That is why it is not a contract. It is an imposition and if I were not in this House at this time of night I would say it was a bloody imposition. It is certainly an imposition.
Thirdly, the Minister says that the claimant must have a clear view and that that is the intention. Yet he will not agree to include in the contract anything which specifies or illustrates in any way what is the responsibility on the Employment Service side. I do not wish to go through all this. There are so many different ways in which we disagree. The Government's attitude towards the jobseeker and the jobseeker's agreement reminds me of Groucho Marx. In "Duck Soup",
488
Groucho says to Mrs. Witherspoon, "Don't read the small print, we haven't written it yet". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.

Prisoners (Return to Custody) Bill
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must declare an interest. The Bill was carried through in another place by my daughter, Lady Olga Maitland, to whom goes the credit for all the research leading up to it.
Noble Lords will be aware that prisoners who are allowed out on unescorted leave on home leave and temporary release schemes sometimes fail to return. Last year there were more than 5,000 breaches of the release rules, including failure to return. Of course, the failure of some prisoners to return is innocent: a prisoner may be ill; his transport may fail him; or his train may run late. But in such cases the facts are verifiable.
On the other hand, if prisoners do manage to stay unlawfully at large for more than five days, it is likely that as many as half might well commit further offences. For, with no legitimate means of support on the outside, there is a strong temptation to return to crime. So a prisoner may well go to ground, try to change his identity and make a concerted effort to avoid recapture. A worrying instance recently occurred and was reported in the press. On that occasion, a prisoner who had originally been sentenced to life for murder during an armed robbery—the sentence later being reduced on appeal to 15 years for manslaughter —was released on 9th April and failed to return.
Manifestly, such offenders should be swiftly recaptured if only to ensure the safety of the public. But, in such cases, surely it is right that the recaptured prisoner should face an extra criminal sentence, which this Bill would make possible. After all, it is a serious offence which deserves to be recognised in the criminal law. I mentioned that last year more than 5,000 prisoners failed to comply with the terms of their release. Some 12 per cent. were in fact punished, but with no more than a mere 28 days' extra imprisonment. Until the other day that was the most that prison governors could impose. So I welcome the Home Secretary's Statutory Instrument No. 983 dated 1st April. That spells out his decision to increase governors' powers, allowing them to impose up to 42 extra days. But, as things stand, that is still the most that prisoners have to fear. It means that they are not really afraid of the consequences if they do stay out over time.
The Bill would create an altogether new offence— that of failing to return from temporary release; and, an extension of police powers of entry and search to help

489
recapture those unlawfully at large. These have been recommended by the Prison Service Working Group which drew on the expertise of the police and probation services, and such charitable bodies as Victim Support, the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoners Families Support Groups.
Clause 1 would make it an offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to return to a prison, a remand centre, or a young offenders institution; that is, on expiry of a period of temporary release or following notice of recall. The offence would henceforth be punishable with up to six months' extra prison, a fine of up to £5,000, or both, which would be imposed not by magistrates but by a court. That would remove a present anomaly. As things stand, any prisoner who escapes from custody commits a criminal offence in doing so. He is then subject to the full weight of the criminal law. But a prisoner who fails to return after temporary release can, under the present system, only be punished with up to 42 days more prison. Yet such failure to return is in fact akin to escape.
Clause 1(1) creates the new offence of failing to return after expiry of the release period or notice of recall. Subsection (2) excludes from the impact of subsection (1) those who will in future be held in secure training centres or in local authority accommodation. That is because, being in the youngest age group, they would only be given release in the first place into the control of a responsible adult. The youngster may not, therefore, be directly responsible for any failure to return.
Subsection (3) gives the courts power to impose a custodial sentence of up to six months, a fine of up to £5,000, or both. Subsection (4) provides that the offence should be taken to have been committed at the place whence the offender was released. Thus, it enables the offender to be tried at the nearest magistrates' court. Subsection (5) has the same effect as Section 49(5) of the Prison Act 1952 and would ensure that those on temporary release, and thus quite lawfully at large, who then stay out beyond the release period or notice of recall are deemed unlawfully at large. Subsection (6) provides that those unlawfully at large before this clause takes effect are not subject to the provision. That is to avoid any appearance of retrospective effect.
Clause 2 deals with another anomaly. At present, the police may enter and search premises without a warrant to arrest a prisoner who has escaped from lawful custody. They may also enter and search premises without a warrant for recapturing a prisoner unlawfully at large, such as those who have failed to return from a period of temporary release—but only if they are in hot pursuit. The Bill removes that anomaly. It will save valuable time by enabling the police to enter premises to arrest a prisoner unlawfully at large, without first having to apply to a magistrate for a warrant.
Thus, Clause 2(1) amends Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, listing the conditions under which police may enter and search. Those paragraphs would allow the police to enter and search to recapture those from the categories listed. Both
490
those listed under paragraphs (ca) and (cb) will be recaptured by arrest. The different terminology in the two paragraphs reflects the phrasing of the original Acts.
Clause 3 refers to the Short Title, commencement and extent. The Bill extends only to England and Wales. Prisoners unlawfully at large in Northern Ireland and Scotland are already liable to prosecution. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has recently published a draft Order in Council to extend police powers there in line with the provisions of the Bill. The Bill would clear up important anomalies. It is a public safety measure. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
7.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess that my first reaction to the Bill is a mixture of trepidation and suspicion. I say "trepidation" because, for some extraordinary reason, the Bill achieved all of its stages in another place not just in one day but in the space of perhaps one minute at the most, without any speeches being made on either side. I do not know whether Lady Olga Maitland has achieved a first in that respect; but, if she has, she certainly deserves objective congratulation. Therefore, I have nothing to go on except my own instincts. There was no debate in the House of Commons that I can refer to as a point of reference.
My suspicion is twofold, partly because I do not think that it is any secret that I am a long way on the political spectrum from the Maitland family, but also because I am instinctively opposed to the creation, especially by Private Member's Bills, of new summary offences and new police powers. But, having said that and after having considered the matter most carefully, I am bound to say that it seems that the Bill addresses two anomalies which need to be addressed.
The first anomaly is that the penalties available for those who are, in effect, escapers from prison— although overstayers are not escapers physically through the walls—are not available to those who outstay their home leave; and, secondly, the powers of search and entry which the police have for those who overstay home leave are not, and clearly should be, comparable to those applicable to prisoners who escape from prison. To that extent, and that is the fundamental point of the Bill, we shall not oppose the legislation. Indeed, I believe that it performs a useful purpose.
However, I have two reservations, one of which, if the noble Earl will forgive me, goes beyond the scope of the Bill and one which does not. The first reservation which does not go beyond the scope of the Bill is the reference in the noble Earl's speech to the 5,000 prisoners who breached the release rules last year. The question which I want to ask the Minister is: how many of those 5,000 breaches of the release rules were serious? The noble Earl said in his speech that if prisoners managed to stay unlawfully at large for

491
more than five days, as many as half would be likely to commit further offences. If that is the case, what proportion of the 5,000 stayed at large for more than five days? There has been an exchange on this matter in the House in recent months, although I have not been able to find it in Hansard.
However, a high proportion of breaches of release rules occurred over very short periods of hours and certainly for fewer than five days. Those breaches were probably committed without intent or out of neglect rather than intent to commit further crimes. I suggest that we need to know whether there are really 5,000 people who are capable of committing further crime, or whether the problem is much smaller than was suggested by the noble Earl in his speech. That is a matter on which I think the Government could help us and it is important in our consideration of the Bill.
The second matter I wish to discuss was referred to by the noble Earl in his speech, and that is his welcome for Statutory Instrument 983 under which the Home Secretary is proposing—and has probably now brought into effect—a severe restriction on home leave. He announced in November of last year that he would introduce changes in the home leave rules which would reduce home leave by about 40 per cent. That is a severe restriction in home leave. It is a restriction to three particular categories of home leave which I shall not discuss now and it goes against the whole thrust of penal reform and penal policy over recent years. Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report on Strangeways in 1988 went so far as to say that it was important for the civilised conduct of prisons that there should be an extension of home leave, not a reduction.
I wonder whether the reaction of the Home Secretary to what may be a few cases of further offending while prisoners are on home leave may not have been in the wrong direction rather than in the right direction. I shall not go into that matter at the moment because the order to which the noble Earl referred is before the House under the negative procedure and I have today prayed against that order. I understand that I have been allotted a slot on Tuesday evening which will allow me to express these doubts in more detail. It would, of course, be quite wrong to anticipate, other than in the form of a trailer, the arguments which I shall be putting forward. However, the noble Earl tempted me by referring to his approval for the order. Indeed he can take some responsibility for the fact that, having looked it up, I found myself dissatisfied with it and have prayed against it. However small the numbers may be, the anomalies which are mentioned in the Bill and are corrected in the Bill need to be addressed, and we will not oppose this Bill at this stage or at any later stage.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lauderdale on his excellent speech. It is rare—indeed I believe it may even be the first time ever—that a
492
Member of this House has had the opportunity to pilot through a Bill which was first introduced in another place by his daughter, albeit with such incredible speed. I, too, wish the Maitland family well in this uncommon event.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government fully support my noble friend's Bill. The provisions of the Bill are fully in accordance with the report of the recent working party set up by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to look into the existing home leave and temporary release schemes. As a result of this review, my right honourable friend announced in his speech in another place on 18th November that the Government believed that a new offence of failure to return from a period of temporary release should be created.
The temporary release of suitable prisoners helps them in the process of preparing for the eventual return to the community. Evidence shows that prisoners who have a job to go to, a secure family environment and skills developed by training or education, are less likely to reoffend than those released "cold" into the community. However, the Government recognise and share the public concern about the potential for abuse that these schemes may on occasion offer. In the past, the balance was too much in favour of prisoners and did not give sufficient weight to the need to maintain public safety or to the concerns of victims.
For that reason, we have recently introduced a new scheme of release on temporary licence. This new scheme is more sharply focused to ensure that prisoners are released only for precisely defined and specific purposes which cannot be provided in prisons. The scheme incorporates a new enhanced collaborative risk assessment, which involves in a more pro-active way outside agencies such as the police and probation services. The safeguards we have introduced are designed to prevent prisoners who present any unjustifiable risk to public safety being released.
These new safeguards will enable us to guard against excessive use of the grant of temporary release which may have taken place in the past. It is never possible, though, to guarantee that any system will be infallible; and the provisions continued in this Bill will ensure that, where offenders abuse the new scheme, they can be swiftly recaptured and appropriately dealt with.
As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has indicated, the Bill also would enable other offenders, such as those who failed to return to prison when recalled from parole licence, to be swiftly recaptured. These further measures will contribute towards improved public safety. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at least gave me notice of one of the questions he wished to ask.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I forgot to ask that question for which I deeply apologise. I wanted to ask the Minister—when referring to the numbers of those who overstay their release by a very short time— for an assurance that those cases would not be dealt with in the courts as criminal offences but by the usual disciplinary procedures within the prisons, for which I would have thought they were quite adequate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to give me forewarning of the question. Whether or not he asked the question, I thought it was worth putting on record a response because there is a natural anxiety as regards the degree of flexibility in applying these new measures. I can tell the noble Lord that in the circumstances which he has now explained, the governor would be able to deal with such a breach under prison disciplinary rules. Indeed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently increased the powers available to governors for up to 42 additional days in prison. The guidelines which are being drawn up jointly by the Prison Service, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service on the referral of alleged offences for prosecution will ensure that prosecutions are reserved only for those who have determinedly remained unlawfully at large. Therefore the degree of flexibility which the noble Lord asked for has been provided. On the other point which was raised by the noble Lord—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but listening to the exchanges there seems to be a question which arises as regards who will refer a prisoner who has overstayed his temporary release period to the courts, and in what circumstances that will be done. How will it be determined that the prisoner will be dealt with by the courts under the new criminal law that is being projected? Who will decide whether a prisoner will be dealt with by the prison authorities under their authority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will of course be guidance that will help the implementation of this particular measure but it is envisaged that the governor will make a judgment about the seriousness of the breach and the degree to which that needs to be addressed either by referring it back to court as a new offence, or by having a prison deal with it under its internal disciplinary arrangements.
In relation to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concerning the number of breaches, it is my understanding that under the prison disciplinary system 12 per cent. of prisoners dealt with under the prison adjudication system were given 28 added days; in other words, awarded the maximum punishment under the rules at the time.
Statistical data on the number of prisoners who remain unlawfully at large for more than five days are not yet held centrally. However, I am told that in response to a commitment given from the Front Bench by my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, a comprehensive statistical data base is being set up to enable such information to be made available.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will that information come to me automatically when it is complete, or do I need to trigger that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord can consider it triggered.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has already set out most lucidly the purpose and effect of the Bill. I shall therefore do no more than repeat my welcome for the Bill, which I believe will make a valuable contribution
494
to the package of reforms which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has introduced. We wish the measure well during its passage through this House.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for her support and, through her, her department for the help it has given me in trying to understand my daughter's research.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised two questions of which I did not have previous notice. In relation to the figure of 5,000, I must tell him that I asked the same question. I understand that there is no breakdown. He will find that my words were picked very carefully, not to hide that point but to cover it. I did not want to mislead the House in any way, so my words were chosen with great care. No doubt my noble friend Lady Blatch will write to the noble Lord.
On this occasion I could not sit down without having congratulated the honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam for her prodigious research and enormous enterprise in this matter. I ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 p.m. to 8.40 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 9.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("the terms and conditions of").
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) In the case of a disabled claimant, a jobseeker's agreement shall set down the financial help that will be available to the claimant to help offset the extra jobseeking costs that he may incur as a direct result of his disability and the personal help and equipment that will be made available to assist the claimant overcome his disability in seeking work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this hour of the night the time has come to précis speeches. I shall do my best to do so, but my speech will probably still be too long.
At Committee stage in both Houses, the Government affirmed that help, both financial and physical, is available from the Employment Service for disabled jobseekers. The amendment provides for what is said to be already available to be specified in the jobseeker's agreement. Previous amendments in Committee in both

495
Houses sought to explore exactly what help is available to disabled people who may incur additional costs as a result of their disability when seeking a job.
In Committee, at col. 684 of the Official Report of 20th April, my noble friend Lord Mackay confirmed that the Employment Service could help disabled people with the costs of searching for work and getting into work. Provision exists for assistance through the placement, assessment and counselling teams, and payments under the access to work schemes. However, disability organisations have found that many disabled people out of work do not know about such schemes or have not been made aware of them. The amendment simply asks for the kinds of assistance that are available to a disabled jobseeker to be set out in the jobseeker's agreement.
Some people already wait months before they can be seen by a disability employment adviser, and months again before a suitable placement can be made or equipment given. I understand that one deaf-blind man in the South-East reported that it has taken the placement assessment and counselling team over three months to approve just some equipment, and he still has not received it.
In another case, a person assessed as eligible for the job introduction scheme was still waiting for six weeks after inquiring about it. With more disabled people moving from ICB to sign on, there are fears that the placement, assessment and counselling teams will not be able to cope.
At col. 684 of the Official Report of 20th April, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mackay stated:
"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".
However, anecdotal evidence suggests that even the present access to work budget is insufficient to cover the needs of disabled jobseekers. Some deaf people have found that access to work does not even extend to the provision of interpreting services for interviews with DEAs, even to seek information about the access to work itself. In some cases, interpreters have not been available for interviews for the job interview guarantee scheme or new claims for unemployment benefit.
In one area, access to work payments for the assistance of interpreters at interview do not cover the full cost or the travelling time which is often significant in rural areas, thus leaving the full cost to be met by the individual jobseeker or the organisation providing the interpreter. While appreciating that access to work is being reviewed this summer, can my noble friend give an assurance that access to work will not remain in its present form but will offer enough assistance to help the thousands more disabled jobseekers who may require help from the scheme? Disabled people coming off incapacity benefit will need the fullest possible range and extent of specialist as well as mainstream assistance.
I believe that the amendment goes some way towards ensuring that the individual jobseeker knows exactly what is available to him. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord set out the arguments extremely well. The amendment refers to the extra costs of disability and the problem that they create for the disabled person when seeking work.
As the noble Lord states, the help available to disabled people in terms of extra costs is not clear. Some help was indicated at Committee stage both in another place and in this Chamber. The amendment seeks to set out the information clearly in the jobseeker's agreement. It would then be entirely clear to the disabled person exactly what he could or could not expect from the agreement.
The amendment also refers to the importance of specialised equipment to assist in employment. I refer to such equipment as specialised computers for blind people, portable induction loops for the hearing impaired, and personal help.
The noble Lord referred to the access to work scheme. Although it is not strictly relevant to the amendment, having spent some time helping to fill in the forms at the end of the first month of the access to work scheme for a disabled person, I can assure your Lordships that the new scheme is far more bureaucratic than the one that it replaces. I was involved in the previous scheme in helping to fill in forms every quarter. A weekly form is now required. The scheme is immensely more bureaucratic and requires much more form filling than previously. No doubt we shall discuss that matter when we discuss access to work and in particular when we discuss the Disability Discrimination Bill.
From this side of the Chamber, we support the amendment. It has been made clear in another place and in this Chamber that there is help available. The Minister made it clear when he replied in Committee. If such help is available, the information should be spelt out in the jobseeker's agreement so that the disabled person knows exactly where he stands.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the amendment divides into two parts. One is about making known information which already exists and facilities which are already available. The access to work scheme is not the easiest system to find out about. I began writing letters to Ministers about the scheme as far back as 1989 when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was a Minister. It is a good scheme. Not enough people know about it. That is why putting the information into the jobseeker's agreement would be a help.
However, the other point of the amendment relates to the extra costs in seeking work which arise from disability. In Committee on 20th April, the Minister stated:
"There is no evidence that unemployed disabled people attending any of the Employment Service programmes aimed at helping jobsearch face additional expenditure costs to enable them to attend or participate fully".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 684.]
To take an extreme example, if you travel in a wheelchair, the journey is an endless series of complications and results in potentially vast additional costs. If you are blind and going to a job interview in a strange town, you will have difficulty. Finding your way around by bus in a strange town for the first time it is

497
hard enough for most of us, but if you are blind it could be positively alarming. If you are short of time, the need to obtain a more expensive form of transport may on occasion be acute. I need not continue with the examples; I am sure that every noble Lord can imagine them. I do not suggest that they go so far as a disabled French friend of mine. He once came to London with his car which had been adapted for the disabled and his disabled parking badge; he thought that that enabled him to park at Oxford Circus. The towing away fees are not the kind of expense that the amendment is meant to cover.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for providing us with an opportunity to discuss this topic. Perhaps I may start at the beginning when the jobseeker seeks his first interview with the Employment Service. It will be with an employment officer and together they will discuss the jobseeker's needs and seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement. If they decide that the jobseeker would benefit from specialist advice from a specially trained disability employment adviser, that can be noted on the agreement and the employment officer will organise it. Not all jobseekers who would be entitled to do so want to use our specialist disability services. It might be interesting to reflect that many people with a disability want: to seek work through the Employment Service mainstream services. During 1994–95, nearly 80 per cent.—that is more than 55,000—of jobseekers with disabilities placed in jobs by advisers were placed by mainstream advisers rather than by disability employment advisers. It is estimated that more than 25,000 other people with disabilities were placed in jobs by the Jobcentre self-service facilities. So it would be wrong to insist that a disabled person's agreement should necessarily contain information about the help and support that is available. The jobseeker may not wish to go through that route.
However, of course, some disabled people want specialist help and they get it from the disability employment adviser. Those specially trained officers clearly have more expertise and experience than it would be possible for the employment officers negotiating jobseeker's agreements to have. There is a disability employment adviser available to every Jobcentre. That is why the best way to ensure that disabled people receive the best help is to offer them specialist advice, rather than trying to include information, which would necessarily be less individual, in each agreement.
In addition to the services of disability employment advisers, the Employment Service seeks to make available to all jobseekers with disabilities or health problems a leaflet about the help that is available to them through the placing assessment and counselling teams and ability development centres. In recognition of the special needs of disabled jobseekers, there is a wide range of provision, both financial and personal.
My noble friend mentioned people who may be coming off incapacity benefit. As I have said before, the Employment Service will spend an additional £71 million in the first three years of incapacity benefit for all those coming to unemployment from IB, including
498
in-depth interviews, specialised help from placing assessment and counselling teams, extra provision on Jobplan, Jobclub and job interview guarantee. People affected by the introduction of incapacity benefit will, therefore, have early access to the most appropriate provision.
Mention has been made of the access to work scheme introduced in June 1994. That extends and replaces existing programmes to provide a wider range of help to more disabled people. The scheme provides help for people prior to finding a job, and help can continue into employment. Help provided includes fares to interview, aids to communication, adaptation to vehicles, and support workers for people with severe disabilities. That might go some way—I hope that it goes further than that—towards addressing one of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about travel. This financial year there is a budget of £13.4 million for the access to work scheme.
Information about that scheme and other support for disabled jobseekers will be available from the employment officer when the individual makes his claim or in the leaflet that the Employment Service produces about provision for disabled jobseekers.
Those remarks were a little abbreviated, like my noble friend's introductory remarks, but I hope that he will be reassured that we take the needs of people with disabilities seriously. I have set out the additional financial support that is available through the benefits system and the provision that is provided by the Employment Service. I believe that the amendment would remove some of the flexibility that the current system offers to treat people as individuals and respond to their needs. Many of them wish to go down the normal route and do so very successfully indeed. I hope that with those reassurances and explanations my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, when he reads the phraseology of his briefing, I am sure that he would not wish to imply that disabled people seeking employment are rather out of the mainstream or going down an abnormal route. I believe he said that the budget for the access to work scheme was £13 million. Has he an indication of first estimates of the likely cost, as opposed to the budget, for the first year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am afraid that I cannot help on the latter point. I only know the budget figure. I hope that in my effort not to take too much time I did not make any injudicious remarks. The point I was trying to make was that many disabled people successfully look for and find work through the mainstream services without going to the disability employment adviser.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and those who supported me. I entirely agree with the Minister that not all disabled people necessarily wish to use the services of the disability employment adviser. What worries me is that so many of them do not know that the help is available or that the access to work scheme exists, as I made clear in my introductory remarks. Can I take it that my noble friend

499
will ensure that all employment officers will make certain that disabled people are aware of the services, even if they do not wish to make use of them? I see my noble friend nodding his head in assent, so I am delighted to accept that assurance and have it on the record. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 4, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the three Amendments Nos. 39, 91 and 96 are all consequential on the provisions in new Clauses 6 and 7 for permitted periods, which I explained in my remarks when the House was in Committee last week. The permitted period is when a person may be treated as being available if he is prepared to be available only for employment and to seek employment in his usual occupation and at his former rate of pay.
Before the amendment providing for those new clauses, the Bill made provision for a permitted period through regulation-making powers specifying such a period in the jobseeker's agreement and through the provision giving an exemption from sanctions in Clause 18. As we explained during Committee, we were concerned that this construction in the Bill appeared to imply that the jobseeker's agreement, by introducing the notion of the permitted period, itself gives rise (rather than expression) to the conditions of entitlement to JSA. The new subsections in Clauses 6 and 7 were our response to those concerns.
Now that Clause 6 provides for regulations to stipulate the minimum and maximum permitted period and the factors which adjudication officers should take into account in determining the permitted period, there is no need for the provisions relating to the permitted period in Clause 19. For the sake of completeness, I should also explain that the protection from any sanction for failing to apply for or refusing employment outside a person's usual occupation and below the usual rate of remuneration will be secured through regulations under Clause 18 prescribing the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as having good cause for such refusal. I beg to move these technical amendments.
9 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 41.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 10, leave out from beginning to second ("to") in line 11, and insert ("The employment officer may, and if asked to do so by the claimant shall forthwith, refer a proposed jobseeker's agreement").
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the proposed agreement").
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the proposed agreement").
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 9, and insert:
("(9) An adjudication officer to whom a reference is made under subsection (8)—

(a) shall so far as practicable dispose of it in accordance with this section before the end of the period of 14 days of the date of the reference;

(b) may give such directions, with respect to the terms on which the employment officer is to enter into a jobseeker's agreement with the claimant, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate;

(c) may direct that, if such conditions as he considers appropriate are satisfied, the proposed jobseeker's agreement is to be treated (if entered into) as having effect on such date, before it would otherwise have effect, as may be specified in the direction.

(10) Regulations may provide—

(a) for such matters as may be prescribed to be taken into account by an adjudication officer in giving a direction under subsection (9) (c); and

(b) for such persons as may be prescribed to be notified of—

(i) any determination of an adjudication officer under this section;

(ii) any direction given by an adjudication officer under this section.

(11) Any determination of an adjudication officer under this section shall be binding.").
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Variation of jobseeker's agreement]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("the terms and conditions of").
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 9, line 45, leave out from beginning to second ("to") in line 46 and insert ("The employment officer may, and if asked to do so by the claimant shall forthwith, refer a proposed variation of a jobseeker's agreement").
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the agreement")
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to tell the House that if Amendment No. 56 is moved, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, leave out lines 7 to 26 and insert:

501
("(6) An adjudication officer to whom a reference is made under subsection (5)—

(a) shall so far as practicable dispose of it in accordance with this section before the end of the period of 14 days of the date of the reference;

(b) shall give such directions as he considers appropriate as to—

(i) whether the jobseeker's agreement should be varied, and

(ii) if so, the terms on which the claimant and the employment officer are to enter into an agreement to vary it;

(c) may bring the jobseeker's agreement to an end where the claimant fails, within a prescribed period, to comply with a direction given under paragraph (b) (ii);

(d) may direct that, if—

(i) the jobseeker's agreement is varied, and

(ii) such conditions as he considers appropriate are satisfied,

the agreement as varied is to be treated as having effect on such date, before it would otherwise have effect, as may be specified in the direction.
(7) Regulations may provide—

(a) for such matters as may be prescribed to be taken into account by an adjudication officer in giving a direction under subsection (6) (b) or (d); and

(b) for such persons as may be prescribed to be notified of—

(i) any determination of an adjudication officer under this section;

(ii) any direction given by an adjudication officer under this section.

(8) Any determination of an adjudication officer under this section shall be binding.").
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Jobseeker's agreement: reviews and appeals
(".—(1) Any determination of, or direction given by, an adjudication officer under section 9 or 10 may be reviewed (by a different adjudication officer) on the application of the claimant or of an employment officer.
(2) Regulations may make provision with respect to the procedure to be followed on a review under this section.
(3) The claimant may appeal to a social security appeal tribunal against any determination of, or direction given by, an adjudication officer on a review under this section.
(4) A social security appeal tribunal determining an appeal under this section may give a direction of a kind which an adjudication officer may give under section 9(9) (b) or (c) or (as the case may be) section 10(6) (b) or (d).
(5) Where a social security appeal tribunal gives a direction under subsection (4) of a kind which may be given by an adjudication officer under section 10(6) (b) (ii), an adjudication officer may bring the jobseeker's agreement to an end if the claimant fails to comply with the direction within a prescribed period.
(6) An appropriate person may, on the ground that it was erroneous in point of law, appeal to a Commissioner against the decision of a social security appeal tribunal on an appeal under this section.
(7) Any of the following is an appropriate person for the purposes of subsection (6)—

(a) the claimant;

(b) an adjudication officer;

(c) in prescribed circumstances, a trade union;

(d) in prescribed circumstances, any other association which exists to promote the interests and welfare of its members.

(8) Subsections (7) to (10) of section 23 of the: Administration Act (appeals to Commissioners) shall apply in relation to appeals under this section as they apply in relation to appeals under that section.
(9) In this section "Commissioner" has the same meaning as in the Administration Act.").
Clause 12 [Income and capital: income-based jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Trade disputes]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Severe hardship]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 13, line 8, leave out ("or other assistance"].
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) This section shall apply to any person aged 16 to 18 who has applied to join the armed forces but cannot join until the next enlistment date.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have not totally shrunk into immobility. I have been encouraged to move this amendment partly by the delightfully back-handed sympathy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that it was the only one of my amendments on 16 and 17 year-olds that was not wholly without merit. I have been in this House long enough to recognise a hint when I hear one. I was also slightly encouraged by a very faint chink of sympathy from the Minister.
The point of this amendment is that the Armed Forces have an enlistment system based inevitably, if people are to go through basic training together, on blocks of people who come in together at three-monthly intervals. The Minister said that there was a possibility of that system changing. I shall listen to anything that he has to say about the matter with interest.
The effect on 16 and 17 year-olds is that if they want to enlist in the Armed Forces they have to wait for the next enlistment date. The time between applying and the enlistment date is not sufficient for them to do a youth training course. They cannot get a youth training place because they could not complete the course. Therefore they tend to have no visible means of support until their Army enlistment date arrives. That tends to have the effect of discouraging enlistment in the Army. It also creates very grave hardship among those who are so determined to enter the service that they are not discouraged. This seems to me not to be in the public interest and not to suit the preoccupations of any of us who are concerned with the issue.
The amendment would provide for an entitlement to jobseeker's allowance from the date of registering for enlistment in the Army right up to the moment of enlistment. It is in the interest of the Army, of the teenager, of the Government, and of the country. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. Civilian firms very often take in small groups of people in order to train them for new work. The

503
Armed Forces need such people, quite obviously, in reasonably sized intakes of probably not less than 30 at any one time at a training centre. Therefore the centres have to wait until a sufficient number of high-quality recruits is available to train. There is a lot of merit in this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are at one in recognising the importance of this country's Armed Forces. On 27th April, my noble friend said in Committee that we would give further consideration to the noble Earl's point about 16 and 17 year-olds who have applied to join Her Majesty's Armed Forces but who are waiting for their enlistment date. This amendment gives me an opportunity to return to that point.
We said at the time that we would need more time to give this complex matter full consideration. I fear that our early inquiries have only made the question more complicated. The three different services of Her Majesty's Armed Forces each have their own recruiting procedures. All need to be consulted about whether difficulties are experienced by young people who are waiting for their enlistment date. The Ministry of Defence told us in response to our initial inquiries that, on average, after receiving an offer a young person will wait about two months for his enlistment date, but in some cases the wait could be much longer.
When we last debated this point my noble friend suggested that he would like to incorporate young people in that provision. However, I am clear that it is important to strike a balance between young people who have to wait only a few weeks for their enlistment date and those who may have to wait considerably longer. For example, there will occasionally be cases in which the young person has to wait for perhaps as long as six months for his enlistment date. In such a case, it does not seem right to encourage him to sit at home on benefit when he could be in employment or undertaking useful training in the intervening period. Therefore, it is my intention to make special provision for young people who have a firm offer of an enlistment date but only if that date is within a fixed period.
However, there are a number of matters to be considered. There is the question of whether the young person waiting to join the Armed Forces should be required to show severe hardship to be entitled to JSA; whether there should be any period for which that is not required; and whether he should be required to register for either training or employment or both.
There are a number of matters on which it is important to get this matter right. I propose to consult further with the Ministry of Defence and other colleagues before writing to the noble Earl with our proposals. Having heard that explanation, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken on this matter and for his recognition that there is a genuine problem. However, it is true to say, important though it is to get things right, that if one looks for difficulties one will find them. I do not see why it is quite so important to work out exactly the average and the median waiting time. One
504
should not be without visible legal means of support, whether it is for two months, three months, three weeks or even three days. If it is one day, it is too long. After all, we are dealing with people who have a very serious wish to undertake what is not a particularly easy form of work and not the sort of activity in which one would expect shirkers to get involved.
I hope that the Minister will not make a meal of the question of how long they must wait. If they must wait, they must eat; if they do not eat, they will not wait. It is as simple as that.
The Minister is also a little optimistic to suggest that they could be in employment or in useful training during a period which, by his own argument, will often not be more than two months. That mistake has been made before. It was made by King Charles I in the summer of 1640 when collecting troops to go and fight against Scotland. He did not have enough money, so he told them to wait for a few weeks, during which time they virtually all deserted. So he could not gather nearly so effective a force as he thought and he lost. I hope that that will not be a precedent.
I think that this matter is not so difficult as the Minister suggested. I may come back to it at Third Reading to see whether the Minister has managed to find ways to make it any simpler. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have begged the noble Lord to explain. It is most ungracious—
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, despite my noble friend's intervention, the noble Earl asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Therefore, I put to the House that the amendment be, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 13, line 18, leave out from ("concerned") to ("or") in line 23 and insert ("has—

(i) failed to pursue an opportunity of obtaining training, or

(ii) rejected an offer of training,

and has not shown good cause for doing so;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 15(3) (b), as it now is, deals with the revocation of the severe hardship direction if it appears to the Secretary of State that the young person has failed to pursue or has rejected an opportunity for training.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, argued that there should be a provision on the face of the Bill that the direction should be revoked only if the person had acted without good cause. The noble Baroness argued most persuasively and my noble friend agreed to reflect further on her points. Yesterday I gave an undertaking to bring forward a suitable amendment. That is now on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 63A.
The amendment makes clear that it is open to the 16 or 17 year-old who has rejected or failed to pursue an offer of training to say that he had good cause for so doing. But if he does not do so, the direction is revoked.

505
If he does, and as a result it appears to the Secretary of State that he has shown good cause, the direction will remain in force.
Several times I have explained that that situation is exactly as it is now in practice. But we have been persuaded that it is right that that important protection should appear on the face of the Bill. That is precisely what the noble Baroness sought. I hope that she feels that the Bill has been improved in that respect.
The amendment also removes the references to employment in Clause 15. It will make clear that the sanctions in Clause 16 can be applied in respect of refusing, failing to pursue or leaving training which is covered by government guarantee but not employment.
I turn to Amendment No. 93A. This amendment makes plain on the face of the Bill that young people in receipt of JSA due to risk of severe hardship, will not receive a sanction under Clause 18 if they have a direction in force and have acted in such a way as to risk its revocation under Clause 15(3) (b) or have a direction in force and are receiving a reduced amount of JSA due to leaving a training course early. It clarifies the sanctions applicable to 16 and 17 year-olds subject to severe hardship direction.
In those directions we have shown a willingness to listen to advice from the Benches opposite. In particular we introduced the concept of "good cause" into Clause 15 and clarified the position on sanctions. I hope that your Lordships will be able to approve the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, my noble friend thanked the Minister last night in advance, so I can thank him today We thank him for the amendments. They seem to be an advance and establish a principle; that is, that the Government, somewhat late in the day, have been converted to the idea that matters of importance should go on the face of the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I give a warm welcome to Amendment No. 63A.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are delighted to see the belated conversion of the Government to goody words like "reasonable", "suitable" and "good cause". We hope to see if they can be converted equally to the expunging of words like "regulations" and "as the Secretary of State may prescribe". We regard this as the first small step of the 39 steps to follow.
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 13, line 34, leave out from ("event") to end of line 36.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Reduced payments]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 13, line 41, after ("percentage") insert ("of not more than 10 per cent").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. These amendments deal with the clause relating to young persons in the 16 to 18 age group.
Clause 16 deals with regulation. It is not clear what the reductions in benefit will be for this group of young people in the first stages of being involved in work if they are lucky enough to obtain employment. The clause says that the regulations may provide "in such circumstances"; it does not give them because they will be within the prescriptions. It says the allowance may be reduced by a percentage but does not state what the percentage is. If young people are receiving benefit, the reduction of an already small amount on which they have great difficulty managing may be punitive. We are saying that the amount should be not more than 10 per cent.
The clause states that the allowance will be reduced "for such a period". Amendment No. 70 seeks to ensure that the period is not more than one week. We are dealing with a vulnerable group of people. We have continually tabled amendments affecting this group but have made little progress. Those young people do not need to be turned away; they need help in a situation which often is not of their own making. The amendments are small. Their effect is that the prescriptions will be on the face of the Bill and not subject to regulation. They will therefore be clear for everyone to see. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support both amendments. In dealing with benefit for young people we must remember that they are already receiving a reduction. As soon as a benefit penalty is imposed, they are subject to a reduction of a reduction and the situation becomes severe. It was somebody in precisely that position, as I mentioned earlier, who told a CAB office in north Wales that he would rather be in prison where he could afford a bed and occasionally put on the electric light.
It is not sensible to subject people to the sort of hardship I have described. And it is not sensible, when people are already disentitled, to subject them to longer periods of disentitlement. During those periods they build up debts which may be a millstone around their necks for years, even if they involve sums which other people may regard as trifling. They have; no resources with which to pay them off and the longer they are disentitled the bigger grow the debts. I hope the Minister will think seriously about the amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the spirit behind these amendments. I am not sure whether the percentage or the term is right; but in replying my noble friend must give the House an indication of what percentage and term the Government have in mind for these reductions otherwise I do not know how we can go on.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, -was making; but I fear that I do not agree with her and I do not suppose that that will come as any surprise. What we do agree over most emphatically is that most 16–17 year-olds are keen to better themselves and take their obligations seriously. They will, as a result, quickly be offered, and accept, suitable training or other

507
assistance. But, a small minority abuse the system. Clause 16 provides a means of dealing with this. We have seen in Clause 15 that it gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke the direction if it appears to him that the 16–17 year-old has failed to pursue or has rejected training places or other assistance. Clause 16 provides for his personal rate of JSA to be reduced by a prescribed amount for a prescribed period if he subsequently reapplies for a direction.
Our intentions in this area were set out by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment in another place, and I shall repeat them for your Lordships' benefit. We intend that if a 16–17 year-old turns down a suitable training place or leaves such a place early without good cause, they will receive a penalty of a 40 per cent. reduction in the personal rate of JSA for two weeks.
The Government believe that is a fair but realistic penalty. The noble Baroness invites me to defend 40 per cent. against 10 per cent. and two weeks against one. To be effective, a sanction must appear as a real deterrent. But we must also recognise the particular circumstances in which we are seeking to make the sanction work. I do not think that a 10 per cent. reduction would be a deterrent, neither do I think that one week is sufficient. Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that a penalty which in many cases would total less than £3 is really sufficient to the purpose? A 40 per cent. reduction would certainly be noticed and I do not deny that. But we are limiting the application to two weeks. It will not go up to four weeks for a subsequent offence as it would for an adult in a similar position, and I think that is an important recognition of the position of young people.
I should like to remind the House that the purpose of sanctions is to deter: if they are effective, they will not be used. The arrangements we have made will ensure that no young person unwittingly falls foul of this rule. A young person who is new to the guarantee group will be allowed once to turn down any offer of training or leave any course early, as I have explained before, whether or not they have good reason for doing so. And, of course, if they do so subsequently they will be able to argue—as we have newly made clear in the Bill—that they did so for good cause.
This is a new provision, designed to deal with the abuse that in a minority—I admit that it is a tiny minority—of cases is increasingly creeping into the system. We are seeking to act against those who turn down offers or leave training and apply for a new direction the next day, which in practice they may do without fear of penalty. It is important that young people are aware of their responsibilities if they are to receive benefit. This is not a means of support for life. It is a helping hand while they find their feet on the career path. It is not acceptable in my judgment for such young people to refuse or walk out on the opportunities that are provided for them.
I believe that, taken together, the government's youth training guarantee, backed up by these clear sanctions and the safeguards and protection I have described, now and at other stages of the Bill, represent a fair and
508
balanced package of measures for young people. I hope that your Lordships are reassured that there is adequate protection for 16–17 year-olds who refuse, fail to pursue or leave training places. I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware that he is very lucky not to have read out that reply rather earlier in the day?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the new details that he has given us. He talked logically and calmly about a group of people who, frankly, do not have the calmness or experience of the Minister or most Members of your Lordships' House. We are talking about young people who will probably be in a degree of turmoil. Many of them will feel rejected.
The Minister said that the provisions are balanced and fair. I do not accept that. There is to be a 40 per cent. cut in a benefit which is already low. If that sanction is applied against a young person I suggest that it will be regarded as a message of rejection; not of trying to help or to give a hand-up to those young people as they attempt to deal with their difficulties and their refusal of a training place.
We must remember that the group with which we are dealing cannot, by definition, have a record of swinging the lead or of trying to find a way around the system. They are new into the system and new to potential employment. Such a group must be given particular attention and shown understanding. That is why the amendment has been tabled. A young person can turn down a training place once. I do not know where that gets us because it is saying, "You are allowed one mistake and then that's it; penalties will be applied". I find the Minister's response unfeeling and unacceptable. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In determining whether the amount of a young person's jobseeker's allowance is to be reduced under the provisions of subsection (1) regard shall be had to the welfare of the young person concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has spent a great deal of time and trouble trying to argue the details of costs and benefits, giving percentages and other such things. This amendment is of an entirely different order from the two amendments that we have just discussed and which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
Amendment No. 71 merely asks that in determining whether the amount of a young person's allowance is to be reduced,
"regard shall be had to the welfare of the young person concerned".
We know that,
"High heaven rejects the lore
Of nicely calculated less or more".

509
I am not asking the Minister to calculate here; I am asking him to think and to feel. There are young people, perhaps without his ken, who are badly treated when they are young by their parents, foster parents or, say, an uncle; or who suffer perhaps simply because of the sheer misery of being a child of an unemployed person or of a person who is imprisoned and who cannot help his children, as I am sure the noble Lord would like to help his own. I am asking the Minister to reflect on how difficult children can be even when they are brought up in well-ordered houses like his own and mine, and with the benefit of an income. I am asking the Minister to remember those other children when he is dealing with his own children of 16, 17 and 18. I am sure that with his own children the noble Lord has experiences similar to mine, but not, I expect, with grandchildren, as I have.
We are talking about children at a very difficult age. Indeed, they are probably even more difficult at 16, 17 and 18 than at three and four and they require every possible consideration from their parents. Those parents may not exist. The children may be in foster care or in care. Very often, such children have no friends to speak for them except those in the social services or possibly in the probation service.
I am asking that where children are destitute of the ordinary love and care which I have no doubt the noble Lord would lavish on his children of that age, they should be treated with special care, and that their welfare should be taken into account by the employment officer and anyone else who has some authority over them. I know that an employment officer is not supposed to have authority, but he wields the whip. Children who are in the parlous condition I have described should not be treated with a whip; they should be treated with kindness. The amendment seeks to encapsulate that principle into the Bill.
As I am not asking for something which will cost money, which seems to be the only gauge by which the noble Lord can answer any questions in this House, perhaps I might appeal to his heart instead of his head. Otherwise I feel that these people, who are often literally destitute and devoid of any help or comfort, should have some obligation towards them laid upon the shoulders of the employment officer. It is for that reason that I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, we are pleased to support the amendment. It is a matter that has been debated previously, and, as the noble Lord said, it is not an area that costs money; but it is one which will probably have a profound effect on young people. I know that when the young 16 or 17 year-old is in the employment office the rules are made clear to him. I know that the JSA to which young people are required to agree and sign up to will be explained to them thoroughly, but the employment officer dealing with a young person will not necessarily know that person's real personal circumstances, the difficulties he may have, or the turmoil he may be going through.
Whereas the Minister may take the view that the Bill will fully cover the issue of a young person's welfare, it is essential to have that on the face of the Bill. If there
510
is a discretion in the Bill as it stands at the moment to take the welfare of the young person into account, there is also the discretion not to take it into account.
We are merely saying that when the young person is faced with a potential reduction in benefit, before the decision is finally taken—before the young person is sent out of the office having been told that the benefit is cut—the welfare of that young person is taken into account. It is not over-dramatising the; position, or over-egging the argument, to say that it could make the difference in that young person being pushed into the twilight zone of our society. We all too often see young people wandering the streets. In many respects, that will determine the rest of their lives.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the amendment in no way distorts the financial implications of the Bill, takes away any kind of authority from the individual employment officer or reduces the Bill's overall impact. It merely requires the welfare of a young 16 or 17 year-old (a child) to be taken into account when his benefit is being considered.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We all have a responsibility for the welfare of young people. In many respects, the; nation has a greater responsibility than we have as individuals. By taking into consideration the welfare of young people, as the amendment proposes, that could save money, for the simple reason that if their welfare is not taken into consideration at that stage, they could end up as criminals. That would cost the Home Office a considerable amount of money through the police and the probation service. In their criminal activities they could end up injuring other people, which will cost both the National Health Service and themselves money. But apart from that, there is a moral duty to look after the welfare of young people and to ensure that we help them on the road forward through life and not down into the pit.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a danger that we are creating in our society a subsection that will increasingly become excluded from society as a whole. It is becoming forgotten and neglected and is almost losing the citizenship that it ought to enjoy.
That becomes more dangerous because as people have grown older it can be said that those of my generation and of other noble Lords have done extraordinarily well. We have gained from pensions, health provision and many other benefits which to a great extent are being paid for by the working generation and those entering the labour force.
I have real fears about creating a generation tension which will give young people the sense that they are increasingly being abandoned by a luckier and more fortunate generation than theirs. Today most of our children do not expect to be better off than we are. Many parents expect their children to be worse off than themselves. There is a declining projection of what will happen to our society.

511
It is wicked that people should give the impression that they are abandoning those between the ages of 16 and 18; the age when they have hardly entered adult society. That is a very wicked thing to do. Sometimes we should use powerful moral phrases.
The amendment is moderate, and it is greatly to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that he has come here tonight to move it. Obviously, doing so has caused him certain problems and therefore I greatly respect him for that. I hope that Ministers will consider carefully what is the minimal possible safety net for young people to whom we owe at least the obligation of a chance in life before they are written off.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I do not believe that the Minister has any idea of the level of hardship that is normal among this group of people. If one lives on a diet of social security briefs, one gets pretty used to hardship; indeed, one must get hardened to it. However, I can think of no where in the whole field of social security where I meet a regular diet of such intense hardship as I do when looking at what is happening to 16 and 17 year-olds.
The amendment is a small start. It also draws attention to a problem that I have raised previously and on which I should like a response. It is the problem of the application of the law of majority to people in this age group. It seems to me that they are treated like children when they would benefit from being treated like adults, and that they are treated like adults when they would benefit from being treated like children. They remind me of the sad case of the man who, when he was asked whether he would like the white or brown meat of chicken, said that he did not know because when he was a child the grown-ups had the white meat and when he was a grown-up the children had the white meat.
It is a sad situation and the question about the law of majority is serious. Will the Government consider asking the Law Commission to look at the question because it has many ramifications and it is rather important?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, posed an interesting question on which I shall reflect. We consider that 16 and 17 year-olds are different from other people who are out of a job. That is why we have set up a special system to try to deal with them. It is based on their need to train and the fact that they should not be allowed to become dependent on benefit and should go into training or, failing that, employment; that is, the declining proportion who do not stay on at school and go on to other forms of education.
I outlined some of the safeguards in my response to the previous amendment. There are other safeguards which we have mentioned at various stages during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. Those are safeguards put in place prior to the judgment as to whether the young person has declined or left training places without good cause. First, the careers service decides whether or not a training place is suitable for a young person. With JSA we are
512
introducing a system of internal review which would take place before a direction is revoked on the grounds that a young person has refused a suitable training place. The young person will be given an opportunity to request a re-examination of his case by the Secretary of State before a direction is revoked.
If the young person is in a training place and is not happy with his training, he can take a number of courses of action. He can raise the matter with his training provider, his TEC or the careers service. Again, the facts of the case will be looked into carefully and, if appropriate, he may be found another place.
But if the young person does leave a training place early and feels that he had good cause for doing so, he will be able to put his side of the case to the Employment Service. The circumstances of the case will be re-examined, and, where good cause is established, a certificate will be issued by the Secretary of State and a copy given to the young person. If he reapplies for severe hardship under JSA, the certificate will entitle him to receive the full amount.
Therefore, we have safeguards to try to protect young people who either do not accept training for whatever reason or who leave it without reason to make sure that we are not being unfair to them when it is decided, if it is decided, to sanction them for not accepting or for leaving training.
I hope that those safeguards show that we are mindful of the special position of these young people. I have explained before that I am sure that no young person should unwittingly fall foul of the system. It will be explained to him and he should be aware of what will happen if he gives up or refuses training.
The welfare of young people is the particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Not all 16 and 17 year-olds will have to prove severe hardship in order to receive benefit. Perhaps I may give a few examples. Disabled young people and lone parents will be able to claim income support without having to be available for work. Others, such as 16 and 17 year-old couples with children and those leaving local authority care—a particular group which I know is of concern to some of your Lordships—will be able to claim JSA without having to prove severe hardship for different periods depending on their circumstances.
When we are looking at severe hardship, the welfare needs of the young person are taken into account in the decision to award a severe hardship direction. The criteria include vulnerability, health, including pregnancy, as I mentioned earlier, and homelessness or the threat of homelessness.
I do not believe that there is any need for young people to fall foul of the system. Young people who accept training receive an allowance as a wage. If they refuse or leave training places without good cause, then we must look carefully at what we do.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made much of the fact that we should all give consideration to our teenage children. Indeed, we all do. My experience is that one occasionally needs a sanction and I believe that the same is true in this regard. Dare I say to your Lordships that when we are talking about youngsters who are being

513
difficult and who seem to refuse training places or attend one for a week or two and then decide that they are no longer interested, those youngsters above all need some kind of sanction in order to encourage them to take the help which will mean that they avoid the problems which the noble Lord fears they will face.
We must balance the way we deal with those young people. I believe that the balance is about right and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I find the Minister's response most unsatisfactory. Indeed, I was very sorry to hear the noble Lord say what he said; namely, that young people need a sanction. Of course, that is true sometimes. But that is not the point. Young people who are destitute do not need a sanction; they need a helping hand. In fact, they need, as set out in the amendment, the assurance that the employment officer will—and this is not very much to ask—have regard,
"to the welfare of the young person concerned".
That is not asking a great deal. I have been given a good deal of detail in the reply to my amendment, but, as Bung Lear said to his ungrateful daughter and son-in-law, the Duke of Cornwall, I would say,
"O reason not the need!".
There is a need, but it has not been recognised by the Minister. Indeed, there is a very severe need. If it were not so late at night, I would give the Minister many examples of the need of young people who are destitute which have been supplied to me by various organisations, not least the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. Quite a number of those children are offenders in one way or another. The Minister will perhaps say that that is their own fault and that, if they have been offending, then they need at least a cuff over the ear or something of that nature. However, what they really need is regard to be had for their welfare.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister cannot agree to the incorporation of those innocuous words, which will cost no money, into the Bill. Surely that should appeal to him. I wonder whether the Minister will just reconsider his reply in the light of what I have said and, if he cannot accept the amendment straight away, say that he will at least consider it in time for Third Reading. Will the Minister be good enough to respond to my appeal?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond. The noble Lord, with all his long years of experience, has devised a way to get me on my feet again. I listened with care to what he said and I should certainly be interested if the noble Lord were to send me copies of the examples to which he referred. However, I believe that we are talking about youngsters who have been given a choice of. a training place or who have been put on a training scheme and have either refused to go on it or have come off the scheme. Therefore, I believe that they have had an opportunity and that officials of the Employment Service have tried to help them. It is a matter of considering what we do thereafter. Do we just go on
514
ignoring the fact that they will not take any help and that they just wish to stay on that benefit, and leave it at that? I do not think that that is the proper way to address the problem.
I am sorry to be so negative to the noble Lord. But, as I said, I should certainly be interested in studying the examples to which he referred. As the noble Lord probably knows, during the course of debates during both Committee and Report stages of a Bill we look again at the matters raised so as to ensure that we have not missed a point that we should have taken on board.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Minister's second response gives me the mere whisper of an excuse to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. I say that because the Minister has not rejected it out of hand. I am asking the Minister to incorporate in the Bill the innocuous words set out in the amendment which would make all the difference between life and death to the people about whom we are talking; and, indeed, would not affect the principles of the legislation one jot or tittle.
Why can the Minister not agree at this stage to accept the amendment, or at least say that he will reconsider the matter before Third Reading? I see that the noble Lord continues to shake his head. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to press the amendment to a Division. It is of very great moral significance as the noble supporter said. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
9.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Newcastle Bp.

Grey, E.

Palmer L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seear, B.

Judd, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Balfour, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Gage, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Byron, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnock, L.

Hacking, L.

Chesham, L.

Haig, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harms worth, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hemphill, L.

Howe, E.

Cross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Leigh, L.

515

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Lucas, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McConnell, L.

Slim, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Northbrook, L.

Wynford, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.57 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 14, leave out line 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Recovery of overpayments]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable]:
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 16, line 3, after second ("a") insert ("suitable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once again the amendment is an attempt to introduce the word "suitable" before "training", to permit a young person to argue that a course of training is not suitable and therefore avoid the removal of the jobseeker's allowance.
Clause 18 is a tough clause. Even in conditions where all the requirements of the jobseeker's allowance have been met it allows the Secretary of State to refuse the jobseeker's allowance to a young person. It sets out the grounds upon which the Secretary of State can refuse a jobseeker's allowance to a young person, overriding even a situation in which all of the conditions have been satisfied. One of the grounds on which he can do so is that the young person has refused or has not taken up a training place.
Once again, we urge the Government to consider the addition of the word "suitable" before "training scheme" on two grounds. First, for a young person to be put into an unsuitable training place is a waste of time and money for the young person, the employer and the trainer. Secondly, the drafting of this subsection is very wide given the stringent situation in which the young person could be placed if he is believed not to have satisfied the additional conditions required in the clause.
In some ways the subsection follows the broad lines of a previous amendment. However, it is more precise and narrow, dealing with the suitability of training. If the Government were to accept the amendment and put the provision on the face of the Bill it would avoid many
516
additional appeals and a good deal of unnecessary trouble. The provision could be borne in mind by employment officers when making a dispensation for a young person.
I have a final point to make. I shall be brief because the hour is late and I do not wish to detain the House; otherwise, like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I would have much more to say. As with the last amendment, I do not see why the Government cannot accept this amendment, not so much because it is innocuous but because it clarifies, is helpful, more precise and more definite and therefore allows the young person to see where he or she stands. I urge the amendment because I simply do not understand why it cannot be easily accepted by the Government, unless on the ground of some strange machismo which makes people think that to concede anything is somehow an emasculation of themselves. I ask the Government to consider the possibility of including the word "suitable" in the subsection.
Even after the changes that have been made—I welcome them and the willingness of Ministers to move on at least some parts of the Bill—the Bill remains extremely harsh on young people. Very few changes have been made which enable the Bill to be a little more understanding towards their needs and requirements. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Ingle wood: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, this amendment stipulates that a claimant would not be subject to a sanction in connection with a training course or employment programme unless that course was "suitable". Given the wording of the clause, that stipulation would apply to all the circumstances set out in Clause 18(5) (b) and (c).
Perhaps I may begin by commenting on one of the points made by the noble Baroness. We wish to be quite clear that this particular part of the Bill does not relate to young people. The provisions which relate to people under 18 are to be found in Clauses 15 and 16.
I am bound to say that I do not see what the amendment would achieve. As we have explained, the kind of courses we intend to prescribe are provisions such as the motivational courses, Restart courses and job plan workshops. Claimants will be offered places on these courses by Employment Service staff. A government amendment, accepted during the Committee stage, introduced the safeguard that the sanction could be applied only when the opportunity had been offered in this way. I can assure your Lordships that a place will not be offered unless the staff concerned are satisfied that the course is in the claimant's best interest. I hope that that touches on another of the concerns expressed.
I remind your Lordships that throughout Clause 18(5) (b) the claimant can escape a sanction if he can show that he had good cause for his action. This could relate to some personal reason—for example, for leaving the course concerned—but it could also relate to the course itself. If the claimant can satisfy the adjudication officer that the nature of the course was such that he had good cause for refusing the place on it or giving up that place,

517
the effect is surely the same as saying that the course was unsuitable in his case. The only circumstance in which good cause cannot be a factor is where the claimant loses his place on a course through misconduct. If misconduct is indeed proved against the claimant, I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would consider that the suitability of the course was relevant.
Against that background, I suggest to the noble Baroness that it might be an occasion to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like clarification on one point. I mentioned young people, not in connection with the technical phrase "young people" in earlier clauses, but with reference to training places which are likely to be largely, though not entirely, taken up by younger people. I do not mean specifically those aged 16 to 18, but the younger workers who are most likely to be sent to training places as a condition of the jobseeker's allowance.
I take the Minister's point about good cause. However, I was trying to point out that the word "suitable" would avoid situations where one had to go through the relatively long process of determining whether the claimant had good cause because the matter would never arise. Will the Minister say something about that?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall be pleased to try to elaborate on what I said in the light of the noble Baroness's subsequent remarks. The crucial point is the government amendment to which I referred and which was adopted during the Committee stage. As I explained, it introduced the safeguard that the sanction could be applied only when the opportunity had been offered by the Employment Service for access to the course. We return to the comments I made earlier about the approach that the Employment Service adopts. The whole object of the Employment Service is to try to get people back to work, either by placing them directly in jobs or by putting them on courses which, in turn, will improve and enhance the likelihood of the person finding work.
The whole nature of the jobseeker's system is to try to ensure that we have what I described on a previous occasion as a dialogue between the employment officer and the jobseeker. It is against that background that the placings will be made. I believe that the worst fears of the noble Baroness are misplaced.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make a point. He is relying on the wisdom of employment officers. I dare say that a great deal of the time they are right, but quite often they are likely to be wrong and they misunderstand what is suitable for the youngster. If the word "suitable" is in the Bill, attention can be drawn to the opportunity for the youngster or older person, as may happen, to say that the course is not suitable. If the word is included in the Bill, it is much easier for the point to be stressed.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords with the leave of the House, we are painting a picture where an almost blindness to the requirements of the jobseeker is the reason for a jobseeker being put on a course that is entirely unsuitable. However, in the real world I suggest that whether or not the word "suitable" is on the face of the Bill will not give a great deal of assistance. What matters is the existence of the phrase "good cause" in a position for the adjudication officer to be able to unravel the mess—if I may put it that way—in which the parties find themselves.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the Minister's explanation, I hope that everything he said will hold true. 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. 81:
Page 16, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraphs (6) (c) and (6) (d), "good cause" shall include the fact that the claimant has completed at least half (and is within 6 weeks of completing) a course of training or study relevant to their prospects of obtaining employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Ministers have said on different occasions while we have been debating the Bill today, "That shows that we have been listening, we're prepared to accept changes". We too have been listening and have carefully read the Hansard report in response to a similar debate on training. Our amendment answers the point about the Bill where we are continually told how important it is to get people back to work. All too often today in the workplace the only way people can get back to work is for them to get added skills or retrain. As the Minister said, many people in work also take part in part-time training courses.
The problem with the Bill is that if such people become redundant and are judged not to be available for work because they are attending a training course, they can and will lose their benefit. Yet in taking a decision as to whether they will accept the benefit and come off the course, they may be determining that they will be unemployed for longer.
For instance, we discussed the issue of drivers of heavy goods vehicles. After the last debate I made it my job to see that I was up to date on this matter. I spoke to some people in Scotland who train heavy goods vehicle drivers. The cost of a course is just under £500 and the duration is two or three weeks depending on the ability of the individual. Someone who goes on such a training course will be regarded under this Bill as not being available for work. People who are given notice of redundancy and who may be on a training course will have to take a decision as to whether they come off the course and possibly blight their future prospects of employment.
This amendment is very straightforward. It states that the claimant must have completed at least half the course, or, in an attempt to answer the Minister's point about implied professional students, must be,
"within 6 weeks of completing … a course of training or study relevant to their prospects of obtaining employment".

519
So we are not talking of someone taking a course in, let us say, ornithology, or in any subject that may not be related to their employment prospects. The course must be directly related to their prospects of obtaining employment, and for a period that will entitle them to benefit for no more than six weeks. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister knows that we believe there is a problem here. He listened to us and we are grateful to him for it. Something will have to be done in future. But meanwhile, we need a holding operation to try to keep the mess under control until a real solution is sorted out. This amendment would suit the purpose extremely well. I am glad that the noble Baroness has moved it, and I am happy to support it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have previously debated the advantages of jobseekers undertaking study and training. We are all agreed that it can help a jobseeker improve his skills and chances of finding employment. There is no difference between us on that. However, we have on many occasions made clear that a jobseeker's first priority should be to get back to work as quickly as possible. Anyone whose first priority is to undertake a course of study should not look to JSA for funding. Jobseekers should be undertaking a course because they feel it will help them to get a job. They should continue looking for work while they are on the course. If a job becomes available, they should take it. Most jobseekers do find work very quickly, and that should apply to those who have started a course of study as it applies to all others.
I of course appreciate the amount of time and effort that people invest in their study and I understand the noble Baroness's concern that such an investment should not go to waste. However, I hope that in the majority of cases, a jobseeker approaching the end of a course would not have to give up the course or training if a job becomes available. Courses are becoming increasingly more flexible and I hope that most jobseekers would be able to rearrange their course in order to take a job.
As always, the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have argued their case most persuasively. Let me be quite clear. I do not propose to accept this amendment. But having said that, we are willing to reflect on the matter further. We think that we may—I stress "may"— be able to see a way forward. We have in Clause 28 of the Bill a power to pilot regulations with a view to
"ascertaining whether their provisions will, or will be likely to, encourage persons to obtain or remain in work or will, or will be likely to, facilitate the obtaining by persons of work or their remaining in work".
This is an important flexibility to test out new approaches that have been welcomed on both sides of the House.
We propose to collect new and better information on the part-time study arrangements, and perhaps pilot new approaches. This would be intended to provide secure evidence on what kind of arrangements will best enhance jobseekers' prospects of obtaining work. With your Lordships' permission, I should like at the same time to consider whether an approach based on the noble
520
Baroness's proposals might be tested alongside other ideas. I do not say that we will do so immediately after JSA is introduced. Indeed, I do not think that we shall wish to do so until JSA has been allowed to settle in for a year or so. But it is certainly something that we shall consider. We are all agreed that study can help a jobseeker's job prospects. What we want to do is to sharpen our understanding of that through research and piloting, and I can give an undertaking that we will consider what the noble Baroness said in that context.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I wonder whether he can go a mite further. Since he accepts the principle behind the amendment, would it be possible to do something without waiting until the JSA has, as he put it, run itself in? Would it be possible in the meantime to give guidance and ensure that something like this would be encouraged by the Government? Must we wait all that time until the JSA has run itself in, when the Government believe in the principle behind the amendment?
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord finally sits down—though, as he is in fact sitting down, perhaps I should say before the noble Lord rises again—as I understood him, he was requiring a person who was undertaking a course of training relative to employment to have to take a job, although that person had not quite finished the course. That seems absolutely mad.
Surely if you are training for something, you want to complete the course. If someone has nearly completed a course, what is the sense in telling the chap that he has to leave it before he reaches the end of it in order to take a job? He would be better qualified and do a better job and be less likely to become unemployed again if he completes the course. To say that we now have modules and the last little bit of the course can be found from somewhere else and added on at a later date is quite absurd.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may remind him that the point of this amendment came up following very helpful discussions with the Minister.
We accepted that he felt obliged to standardise the procedure across the country by coming from 21 hours down to 16 hours. We understood his thinking, although we thought that he could have been more generous. We understood that he was trying to achieve a standard formulation of 16 guided study hours.
We were concerned that that caught two groups of people. One, as my noble friend said, which had paid fairly heavy fees for a course—more than £100—which was deemed by the employment officer to represent such an investment in the course that those people were then disqualified from benefit; and a second group of those who had almost reached completion of the course and, as the noble Baroness said, were required to leave that course, sometimes perhaps for just a fortnight's temporary job before Christmas in Woolworths. Those

521
people, nonetheless, after three months might have to give up the final month of a four months' course. We all thought that that was foolish and I thought that the Minister had accepted that.
Following the plea of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, and given that we have delayed the implementation of JSA until October though no doubt the guide and study rules will come in through guidance earlier, can the Minister say in the meantime that, at the time that the guided study hour regulations go out, there will be an accompanying note advising employment officers to look sympathetically at a situation in which somebody is undergoing an approved course of training or study relevant to his employment and is close to completing it? It would be an investment for the future. That would not be much. Clearly it could still be taken to adjudication or appeal if either side thought that the other side was behaving unreasonably. It would at least produce a climate in which we respected that situation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question before the noble Lord sits down. I welcome very warmly what he has said; but will he also consult the associations of colleges and the heads of further education institutions?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we seem to have been going back round the debate that we had on a number of occasions earlier. As I said, the case from the Benches opposite has been argued most persuasively. The hand that was trying to feed has been bitten a little. I have explained the Government's position. I do not see any need at all to take the matter any further at this stage.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I have heard of giving on the one hand and taking back on the other, and we have just had a very good example of it. The Minister has made the point. The argument is accepted and the fact that it will probably put people back into work. But it will not be done immediately. We welcome the proposals put forward by the Minister. What we have great difficulty with is the timing of those proposals. We have some time in front of us to look at the whole area before this Bill goes on the statute book. If there needs to be a pilot course or if there needs to be more research, that is fine. But to say that it will not happen for a long time makes the apparently generous gesture almost worthless.
With due respect, it is not a reality to say that people on courses, if they gain employment, can rearrange the courses. They cannot. I have dealt with thousands of people who have been on such courses after being made redundant and had to retrain. It is not possible to go to the training centre, the TEC or the college and say, "You must rearrange my course because I have the opportunity of employment." One can imagine the trainer's response, "But you only have a few weeks to go. Why leave the course now when you will come out at the end with a skill that will increase your prospects?"
The Minister almost tripped himself up in saying that the logic is there, the case is made, but they are not going to implement the provisions as yet. I regret that the Minister should feel that we are biting the hand that feeds us. We are not. We are trying to ensure that people do not remain on the unemployment register for one day
522
longer than necessary. Added skills will help towards that. We need perhaps to look at the whole debate again. I shall read the Minister's words tomorrow with increased interest and may well come back to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Exemptions from section 18]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in section 18, or in regulations under that section, shall be taken to prevent payment of a jobseeker's allowance merely because the claimant refuses to seek or accept employment in a situation which is vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords one of the consequences of our accelerated progress through the amendments in the late hours of the Committee stage on 27th April was that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, withdrew her amendment to put on the face of the Bill the protection from sanction for a person refusing to accept an offer of employment arising from a trade dispute. That denied me the rare pleasure of being able to accept an amendment from noble Lords on the Benches opposite. Not to be denied that pleasure a second time, I am bringing the same provision forward as a government amendment.
It was always the Government's intention to carry forward this provision, contained in current legislation, though we had been minded to provide for the protection in regulations. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept this amendment as an indication of the importance of the provision. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, of course we congratulate the Government. I never thought that this Government could surprise me. It may sadden me, annoy me, make me laugh, but not surprise me. But they surprised me tonight. I still do not know why they have done it but then I never knew why they took away this long-standing concession in 1988. I am only saddened that, as the noble Lord said, the amendment was tabled in our name and if I had moved it at 10.45 p.m. they may have accepted it. One can never tell.
I say only one word of warning: one damn thing leads to another. If the Government start giving back trade unionists their rights, one never knows where it will end.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("(1B) Section 18 does not apply, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (5) of that section, if—

523

(a) a direction is in force under section 15 with respect to the claimant; and

(b) he has acted in such a way as to risk—

(i) having that direction revoked under subsection (3) (b) of section 15; or

(ii) having the amount of his jobseeker's allowance reduced by virtue of section 16, because he has failed to complete a course of training.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 93A has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 17, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the consequences of our accelerated progress on 27th April when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, withdrew her amendment to replace the power to make regulations for trial periods with a duty. As with Amendment No. 93, here I am not to be denied the pleasure again of responding positively to the noble Baroness's concerns and, incidentally, surprising the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
In other areas of the Bill we have resisted attempts from the Benches opposite to replace regulation-making powers with duties because of the need to retain flexibility in the way in which we provide for the detailed rules of JSA. In this instance there is no such concern.
The employment on trial rule enables people who have been unemployed for a certain length of time to take up work in the knowledge that if they subsequently decide to give it up after a specified time, there will be no question of a sanction for leaving the job voluntarily. The Government is confident that this protection from sanction provides a valuable incentive for unemployed people to try out areas of work that might be comparatively unfamiliar to them. Our hope is of course that once started in the job, they find that it is working out, and that they decide to stay in it. The success stories are those who do so. Paradoxically, the fewer people who actually end up using the rule and thus return to benefit, the better.
In the JSA White Paper, the Government confirmed their support for the employment on trial rule. We announced that it would be continued and improved. Our intention is that the qualifying period of unemployment will be reduced from six months to three months, and that people using the rule will be able to leave jobs without penalty at any time between the fourth and 12th weeks of employment, instead of the sixth and 12th weeks. This will help potentially an additional 200,000 people. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, can accept this amendment as a response to her own amendment which was not moved in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in that one damned thing leads to another and we thank him for this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 17, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("payable") in line 24, and insert ("In such circumstances as may be prescribed, an income-based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable to a claimant even though section 18 prevents payment of a jobseeker's allowance to him.
(3A) A jobseeker's allowance shall be payable by virtue of subsection (3) only if the claimant has complied with such requirements as to the provision of information as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
(3B) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for a jobseeker's allowance payable by virtue of that subsection to be—

(a) payable at a prescribed rate;

(b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 19(3) provides the powers to make hardship payments of JSA to claimants who are under a sanction imposed for one of the "offences" set out in Clause 18. This amendment has two purposes. First, it corrects a deficiency in the original draft of the Bill which would have restricted hardship payments to people whose original claim to JSA was income-based. This would have meant that someone who was claiming contribution-based JSA only could not have received a hardship payment even though he satisfied the conditions for income-based JSA. The issue arises because, although the personal rate of JSA will be the same by both routes, legally the contribution-based allowance takes priority. Consequently, people who could establish both a contribution-based and an income-based entitlement, of equal amounts would only be claiming contribution-based JSA. The amendment ensures that any JSA claimant can receive hardship payments if he satisfies the relevant conditions since it removes the original qualification that they be made only where an income-based jobseeker's allowance would otherwise be prevented from being paid by Section 18.
Secondly, the new subsection (3A) allows for the adjudication officer to seek additional information from the claimant to ascertain whether he is in a vulnerable group, and whether there would be hardship if benefit were denied. There are already powers to require information in the Administration Act where this is necessary to determine a claim. This cannot apply in these cases since the claim will by definition already have been determined, but benefit will not normally be payable because of the sanction. This amendment ensures that proper provision is in place to carry out the policy intentions which we have already made clear. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously we accept the need to have hardship payment for those on contributory non-means-tested JSA. Clearly also, we do not move from our view that if somebody is getting means-tested JSA, which means obviously that their partner is not in work and that they have virtually no other earnings and very modest savings, that of itself is a test of hardship. That was the position which we argued at Committee.
Given that the Government nonetheless are persisting in having a definition of "hardship" which is more severe than that for the means-testing of JSA, perhaps I may use this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify what that additional test of hardship will mean. First,

525
will a person be expected to use up all of their savings before being eligible for hardship payments? At the moment, under means-tested JSA, there is an income scale of £1 for every £250 for savings of between £3,000 and £8,000 for a couple. Will those savings have to be wiped out before there is eligibility for hardship payments?
Secondly, what types of income, normally ignored, will be counted? Will the disability living allowance be included? Will there be the usual disregard of £10 per week for charitable or voluntary payments?
Thirdly, what will claimants have to do to show that they have no alternative access to funds? Will they have to show that they have tried the Social Fund but been refused? Will they have to show that they have tried a bank for a loan but been refused? Will they have to show that they have pestered relatives or charities but been refused? In other words, once the Minister has gone down the path of saying that "hardship" is be be even more harshly defined than "eligibility" for means-tested JSA, it would be helpful to the House if, at the very least, we could know what he has in mind for the basis of that test.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to respond to that, although it takes us back to earlier discussions when I was armed with some information on the subject—but I am armed again. So perhaps I can explain that we shall be carrying forward current practice for hardship payments in income support. It is for the adjudication officer to decide whether to award a hardship payment, taking account of the circumstances of the household and its access to alternative funds, including income from savings or from other benefits. Having modest savings will not automatically debar someone from receiving a hardship payment. For example, provision will be carried forward for a 20 per cent. reduction to apply—rather than a 40 per cent. reduction—where the household has capital of under £200 and a family member is pregnant or seriously ill. The question of borrowing will also, as now, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it may appear to the adjudication officer that a claimant may reasonably look for support to a family member, particularly if the period covered by the benefit sanction is short.
In JSA we shall be specifying in regulations that the adjudication officer must take into account the duration of the shortfall of funds—a matter which is currently left to guidance in income support. However, the claimant's representation of hardship will cover not only his circumstances but also why the non-payment of JSA would result in that hardship. It will be for the claimant to satisfy the adjudication officer that he has no alternative source of funds. A hardship payment is made, by definition, to someone who in principle has forfeited his right to JSA. The payment is a safety net and any safety net has to rely on a fair amount of discretion. I hope that I have answered the points made by the noble Baroness and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 17, line 26, leave out subsections (4) to (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 96ZA:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert:
("Period of entitlement
2A. Where a person has been assessed as capable of work under Part XIIA of the Benefits Act, but has been awarded one or more points in respect of one or more of the descriptors applied under the all-work test; the period for which he is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 364 days in any period for which his entitlement is established by reference (under section 2(1) (b)) to the same two years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Minister has surprised my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord McCarthy, it is only fair to give him a chance to surprise me by accepting this amendment. The purpose is to reinstate the 12 months' contributory JSA to disabled people. The matter has been discussed previously. The amendment protects disabled people from the reduction in contributory benefit from 12 months to six. We know that disabled people take longer than non-disabled people to find work because of their disability or, in some cases, because of a negative attitude to disability and health problems on the part of prospective employers.
With at least 150,000 more disabled people expected to sign on as unemployed for JSA, the scale of the problem will be greatly increased. For example, someone who scored below the threshold for incapacity benefit could, nonetheless, have a substantial disability even though that person would be considered theoretically capable of all work. That is a problem we have discussed on previous amendments.
I am advised by the Disability Alliance that demands on the specialist expertise of disability employment advisers are likely to increase far beyond the numbers for which the Government expect to cater, as a result of removing thousands of disabled people from incapacity benefit. Only 29,000 of the 150,000 people expected to sign on (about one-fifth) will be referred to placing assessment and counselling teams. There is already evidence of long waiting lists to see DEAs. Some people have to wait three months to be seen in the first place. One disabled person had to wait for over six weeks for a DEA to arrange a job introduction scheme.
In effect, a disabled person can spend almost all of the period of contributory JSA waiting for assessment and a suitable training placement. A shorter period of contributory benefit could therefore affect disabled people disproportionately. Reinstating the 12-month duration of contributory JSA to people coming off incapacity benefit will cost about £10 million a year. That information was given in a Written Answer in the Official Report of the other place on 9th May 1995 (col. 394).
When a similar amendment was debated in the other place in Committee the Minister stated that the proper way to help disabled people was through the Disability Discrimination Bill. If that is in the Minister's brief, when he replies perhaps he will tell us how it is proposed to do that. As it stands, it will relax the necessary enforcement procedures needed to ensure that it is implemented fully; and, of course, the exemption from the Bill of small employers will not help those people who are seeking employment in companies with fewer than 20 people—that is, 96 per cent. of all employers.
We have tried to deal with the problems of disabled people throughout the Bill. The amendment would put right an obvious injustice at, as I said, a cost of about £10 million.
The main reason put forward by the Government for reducing the current duration of unemployment benefit to six months under the JSA is that the majority of claimants have only a short spell of unemployment lasting six months or less. A recent parliamentary Answer suggests that 44 per cent. have spells of unemployment lasting less than six months.
We know that the position is bound to be different for disabled people. There is evidence to suggest that many disabled people actively looking for work take a considerable time to do so and therefore could be substantially disadvantaged by a shorter period of contributory benefit. An excellent report entitled Employment and Handicap was produced in 1990 by Social and Community Planning and Research. I shall not go through all the evidence, but it shows without any doubt that disabled people take much longer to find work than do non-disabled people.
There is also the business of training. We know that unemployed disabled people receive priority on training courses for training for work. However, the way training finance operates means that while there is a financial incentive to take on disabled people—there is double the start payment and eight times the outcome payment— providers will have an incentive to take on only those disabled people who they are confident will complete the programme, gain qualifications and find work.
There are many disabled people, especially those moving from incapacity benefit, who are unlikely to meet the requirements of providers looking for a quick throughput for their programmes. If we take the greater disadvantage which already faces disabled people in the labour market, to cut six months from their contributory benefit is little short of mean. Reinstatement to that group of people is unlikely to cost the Government much, but it will make a massive difference to disabled people themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to allow those people who are found capable of work under the all-work test in incapacity benefit, but who have scored one or more points under the test, to receive a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance for up to 364 days rather than the 182 days specified in the Bill.
528
I am almost tempted to say that from my re-appearance at the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will realise that I do not consider that would be right for a number of reasons. It seems to be my noble friend who has been giving all the concessions, and so on, for the last little while.
The basic principle of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance is that it is a personal entitlement paid for up to six months, irrespective of the claimant's personal circumstances. Therefore, I do not believe that it is appropriate to adjust the basic conditions for individual groups. However, claimants can receive certain disability benefits on top of their contributory allowance; in particular, disability living allowance. Where there is continuing need at the end of the six months' contributory benefit period, income-based jobseeker's allowance will be available for all those who require it and for as long as it takes to find work.
We recognise that disabled claimants may have special needs and difficulties in finding work. But extending the contributory period is not the answer. The best way to help those in this group, as for all unemployed people, is to get them back into work. I shall not pray in aid the disability Bill that is soon to come to this House. We shall have more than enough time to discuss it. However, I must point out—and perhaps I shall have to do so on a number of occasions—that the figure of 20 per cent., which the noble Lord gave as a limit, is not an accurate reflection of the real situation as regards employees. Eighty per cent. of all employees will be covered by the Bill because so many work for the larger companies.
The Employment Service provides a wide range of services and programmes to help disabled people and their employers, giving unemployed disabled people priority for a place on all main employment and training programmes for which they are suitable. In response to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, I mentioned them in some detail earlier. I do not wish to go over them all again but I remind noble Lords that 53,000 unemployed disabled people were helped into work by the Employment Service in 1993–94. Furthermore, during the next three years an extra £71 million in resources will be going into the Employment Service to provide a package of help to enable those people affected by the introduction of incapacity benefit to have early access to the most appropriate Employment Service provision.
I regret to say that for all those reasons we believe that it would be inappropriate to extend the period of entitlement to contribution-based JSA to this group. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thought that the Minister was going to surprise me but, obviously, he is not going to do so. Claimants receive DLA in any event, and therefore I do not see what that has to do with the amendment. All the evidence points to the fact that disabled people do not get back into work as quickly as other people. The Minister has no evidence to show that the facts that we have given are wrong.
I am not surprised that he did not quote from the Disability Discrimination Bill. I do not believe that he was stopped from doing so by the time of night but

529
because he realised that the argument which the Government produced when they called that Bill in aid in the other place will not work in this case. He said that 80 per cent. of employees will be covered. That means that 20 per cent. will not be covered. If the proportion is that small, why not include them? We shall discuss that matter when we debate the Disability Discrimination Bill next week.
I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. I believe that we made a strong case but I am not surprised by the rejection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but we may wish to return to the matter on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert:
("(e) for occupational pensions to be disregarded, in the case of a disabled person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under current unemployment benefit rules, people aged 55 and over have their benefit reduced pound for pound if they also receive an occupational or personal pension of more than £35 per week. The proposal in the White Paper for contributory jobseeker's allowance is to remove the age threshold and to raise the pension level to £50. This amendment concerns disabled people, some of whom may have occupational pensions awarded on the basis of early retirement on grounds of ill health. It seeks to disregard such pensions when calculating contributory jobseeker's allowance.
Written Questions were put to the Minister in the other place in order to ascertain how many of the estimated 150,000 people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance in the year 1996–97 will also have an occupational or private pension. The Minister stated that the information is not available, as reported in the Official Report of the other place on 7th March at col. 169 and again, 10 days later, at col. 744.
However, according to the Department of Social Security's own research—in its Report No. 20—over two-thirds of the sample of people receiving invalidity benefit did not receive an occupational pension. Only an estimated 38 per cent. of invalidity benefit claimants received an occupational pension at an average of £60 per week, as reported in the Official Report of the other place on 8th February last year at col. 210.
If that percentage of claimants is reflected in similar proportions in the numbers expected to sign on in 1996–97, about one-third of such claimants—about 50,000 people—could have their contributory benefit reduced or completely withdrawn. For example, an average £60 pension would reduce contributory JSA by £10 per week.
The removal of an age threshold means that people of any age could be affected. That could have the greatest impact on older disabled people moving from incapacity benefit to JSA. The chances of a disabled person having an occupational pension increases with age, with 55 per cent. of men claiming invalidity benefit having some occupational pension payment after the age
530
of 55, compared with only 5 per cent. before the age of 45, as reported in the House of Commons' Hansard of 7th February last year at col. 32.
In Committee in another place the Minister argued that the pension level should be the determinant rather than age, as reported in the Official Report of Standing Committee B in the other place on 7th February this year at col. 248. However, age is relevant to disabled people. Indeed, the greater likelihood of people over the age of 45 having an occupational pension was one of the reasons put forward by the Government during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act for reducing the age from which the age allowances are payable with incapacity benefit to below that age.
While only 30 per cent. of people aged between 45 and 54 claiming invalidity benefit received an occupational pension, as reported at col. 32 on 7th February last year in the House of Commons' Hansard, such people in that age group moving from incapacity benefit to JSA could have their benefit reduced as a result of this provision.
Someone with a working spouse or with savings above the limit, could also be excluded from income-related JSA, leaving someone with no benefit at all from day one. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not wish to go through the whole argument on this amendment, because it is complicated and has been put extremely well by the noble Lord. I hope that the Minister will deal with the illogicality which the noble Lord pointed out; namely, that the arguments used by the Government when we debated the incapacity for work legislation is the reverse of the argument which they are likely to use on this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, since 1981, there has been some form of abatement in unemployment benefit for occupational pensions. This is, therefore, a long-standing principle in contributory benefit, and one which is widely accepted. That principle should, we believe, apply to disabled people who receive occupational pensions in the same way as it does to other claimants. There is no reason to treat disabled people who are unemployed and looking for work differently from other jobseekers.
We are, however, increasing the level of disregard that applies to those receiving contributory-based jobseeker's allowance with an occupational and personal pension from £35 to £50 a week. Of course, that will be applicable to all jobseekers on the contributory-based JSA. That provides a positive incentive to people to make provision for their own retirement and allows for a disregard of a substantial part of that pension. Pension payments will continue to be taken into account fully in income-based JSA, as they are in income support for all claimants, including disabled people.
We believe that the removal of the 55 age limit is fully justified. The current limit is arbitrary and inequitable. There is no reason to treat two claimants differently simply because one is 54 and the other is 55.

531
We believe the financial resources available in JSA are better used in measures which will actually help disabled people in general into jobs, not in giving a special disregard for disabled people with an occupational or personal pension. There is an extensive programme of financial and practical help for unemployed, disabled claimants—which we discussed on a number of occasions this evening—over and above that given to the majority of claimants.
I recognise that pension payments are not taken into account in incapacity benefit. However, there is a wide difference in the nature of the two benefits, and as regards the situation of those claiming them. Contributory JSA is a short-term benefit paid to people to tide them over a period of unemployment. Everyone claiming JSA is, by definition, capable of work and is looking for work. In those circumstances it is right to carry forward the long-standing principle of abatement from unemployment benefit. Incapacity benefit, on the other hand, has to cater for those whose disabilities are long term and who are not, therefore, capable of working. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall read the response given by my noble friend the Minister, but I may well return to the matter on Third Reading. Pensions granted to people who suffer disability as a result of their work are very often a way of compensation because their ability to work is limited and therefore their choice of jobs is limited. That means that they are likely to be unemployed for longer when they are looking for work. It is a matter which my noble friend does not appear to have taken into consideration. As I said, I shall read my noble friend's response and will perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96B to 96D not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 96E:
Page 36, line 14, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 96F. The amendments simply correct drafting errors in the provision and make no change to its effect. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 96F:
Page 36, line 15, after ("(2)") insert ("only").
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 96G:
Page 37, line 29, after ("may") insert ("not").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move the above amendment partly for the purpose of discovering a little more about what paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 actually means. As one grinds one's way through such a complex Bill, gradually, rather like a mountain appearing through the mist, the essence of the legislation begins to become clear. I may be wrong, but I am increasingly convinced
532
that the essence of the Bill is about removing people from benefit so that not only will public money be saved but also an impressive fall in official unemployment figures will be brought about.
I have in mind the current gap between the appearance given by the employment statistics of constantly declining unemployment and the reality which seems to be encompassed in news broadcasts every single morning when yet another firm announces its intentions to downscale—usually in thousands—the number of people it employs. Most recently, I recall BRB in York, National Westminster Bank and other banks. I could read out a long list, but I shall not bore the House at this late hour by doing so. However, one becomes aware that there are two ways of reducing unemployment; one is to put people in jobs and the other is to change definitions.
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 rather surprisingly suddenly says that additional conditions may have,
"to be satisfied with respect to the payment of a jobseeker's allowance to any person who is, has been, or is to be, in employment".
That is a rather wide number of tenses to cover every possible situation. The paragraph continues,
"which falls within a prescribed description".
One of the excellent things which has happened today is that Ministers have brought forward changes to the Bill which limit that dreaded phrase "prescribed conditions" and try to indicate more clearly what those conditions might be and what are the limits of prescription. But here, right at the very back of the Bill, buried in Schedule 1, we come across this troubling phrase, "within a prescribed description".
The prescription is presumably the result of regulations, the kind of which, the nature of which, and the category of which there are no clues to. As I read paragraph 17—I hope I am wrong—it looks almost like an open door to producing additional conditions which would have to be satisfied for jobseeker's allowance to be paid, with no indication of what those conditions might be. I very much hope I am wrong, because this paragraph by itself would almost undo most of what has been achieved in the past few days, and which Ministers have been kind enough to respond to.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, can tell me that these fears are all misplaced, that these possible regulations under which additional conditions can be laid down are circumscribed, narrow and are little more than technicalities. But I think that if he reads paragraph 17 again carefully he will at least see that it is not wholly unreasonable to think that this could be a wide open backdoor into the Bill. Above all, I am seeking a much closer definition of what paragraph 17 may mean. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to add just one word to what my noble friend has already said. I hope, when the Government reply to this amendment, that they will not confine themselves to setting out their own intentions. We want to know what else could be done under these vires, not necessarily by them but by anyone else who might get them into their hands in future. We are thinking of the future as well as the present.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, those on the Liberal Benches have certainly explained well their thoughts on this matter. They have, of course, said virtually everything which could be said about this amendment, but it is a useful amendment and it gives the Government an opportunity to explain what on earth this particular part of the schedule means. We look forward to hearing what they say.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment would negate the power which enables us to require additional conditions to be satisfied by any person claiming a jobseeker's allowance who is, has been, or is to be in specified employment. The provision will be used to place additional availability requirements on share fishermen claiming contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and special availability conditions for those who have been temporarily laid off or put on short-time working. I shall explain this in some detail.
Your Lordships will be aware that this type of power is nothing new in social security legislation—similar powers are currently contained in Section 28(3) of the contributions and benefits Act 1992. Moreover, I should point out that, in carrying these provisions forward, the Government have actually restricted the scope of the power compared with that in the benefits Act, which provides for restrictions on the rate of allowance that can be payable. So what we have here is a more restricted power, which we nevertheless believe is necessary to allow for the fine-tuning of the benefit to meet the needs of individual groups.
It may help your Lordships if I explain in somewhat greater detail how this provision will be used. The first use concerns share fishermen. This is a group which your Lordships will be aware have special access to unemployment benefit at present. They do not pay Class 1 contributions, and so would normally not qualify. However, they are able to gain entitlement on the basis of their special Class 2, self-employed contributions, and this will continue to be the case for contribution-based JSA.
There is currently a rule in the unemployment benefit regime which requires share fishermen to demonstrate that they could not work on any day on which they claim benefit. That additional requirement reflects the self-employed status of fishermen and takes account of their particular work patterns, which are dictated by the weather and the availability of fish rather than the requirements of an employer. Similar regulations will be made in contribution-based jobseeker's allowance to require share fishermen to be available for work at all times and to prove that they could not work as fishermen if they wish to claim JSA. Those additional requirements are part of the overall package which applies to fishermen who are being given special treatment. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be a nonsense to treat those claimants as if they worked a normal 9 to 5 day for an employer.
The second use of the power is for short-time or temporarily stopped workers. We accept that the benefit system should offer some support to people who cannot work their normal hours because their employer is experiencing industrial problems, but we do not believe that that can continue indefinitely. We shall use this
534
power to set out a special availability regime for this group which reflects their very particular circumstances. It is clear that we are not dealing here with the normal case of unemployment. Many of these: claimants will have continuing contracts of employment.
We propose that if they are laid off because of industrial difficulties claimants will be able to look for temporary work only or, if they are: on short-time working, part-time work only for the balance of the days on which they are not working. That arrangement will apply for a limited period of 13 weeks. After 13 weeks claimants will be expected to take a full-time job even it if means giving up their existing job. We must recognise that after a while the situation can no longer be regarded as a temporary period of adjustment. Claimants' best chance of returning to full-time work after a reasonable time may be to move to a different employer.
I believe that those proposals strike a sensible balance which is fair to claimants, employers and taxpayers. It would be wrong that a benefit system designed to help people back to work should be used as a means of support for employers indefinitely.
I have explained the two uses which the Government propose to make of this power. I believe that they are entirely reasonable adaptations of the benefit system. I know that the share fishermen system works already under the current regulations. There is nothing sinister here. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment; but I shall find it amusing, and some of my colleagues may find it useful, if she decides to divide against a measure which is designed to help share fishermen.
11 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer this question. He has given two examples. Are we to understand that, like earlier examples, there may be many further instances, or are they finite examples and the only two instances, in which case why can they not be put on the face of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, they are two examples of where we currently apply the same procedure. We need to transform those into JSA. I suggest to the noble Lord that to include the regulations which encompass those two groups on the face of the Bill would probably take up some clauses. That would also mean that we could not fine tune the regulations if that were necessary because the employment patterns of share fishermen changed, if we decided to make a change or if any other group came into being which needed the same kind of special treatment as the two groups that I mentioned.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he answer the question I asked him about what other governments might do under these powers? That question is central.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid, as I said to the noble Earl on one or two previous occasions when he asked that question, it is very

535
difficult for me to look into a crystal ball and into the minds of future governments. I have explained the use we propose to make of this power. I suggest that in future if a government decided to use the power in a way which seemed not to be in the spirit or the meaning of the words in the Bill or the words I have used this evening, there would be recourse to the courts, for example, to make sure that the interpretation was correct and that that future government were acting legally and were not abusing their powers. However, I cannot envisage a situation in which a future government might decide to use these powers in a punitive manner, other than in respect of the two cases I mentioned, where I believe they are being used in a positive manner.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl at least agree that any changes made in this House would be by the affirmative measure so that we should have a chance to see what was being done?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say this. I believe that these powers would be by the negative procedure. I presume that that is the position at present. I shall have to check that. Without checking the detail, I believe that it is the negative procedure. I think that that is how it should be left.
Earl Russell: My Lords, with respect, I do not think the Minister understood the question that I asked. I was not asking him to look into the mind of a future government. I was asking a technical, legal question about the extent of the vires he is taking. With advice, I am sure that he must be able to answer that question. We need to know the answer in order to decide what to do with the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall try to expand on the position. I am not a lawyer but I understand that these tests are very hard to judge in the way that the noble Earl asks. The courts and, in social security legislation, the commissioners can test a specific proposal against the vires test. Clearly, that is what would happen if in future a government seemed to be straying rather wide of what is viewed as the intention of the powers and someone wished to mount a challenge in that regard.
I am afraid that I cannot go any further to allay the noble Earl's suspicions about future governments.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, let me respond to what the Minister said in response to my amendment. First, I am not sure that relying on precedent is always the wisest course if the precedent is bad—and there are some bad precedents in social security legislation.
Secondly, I share the concern of my noble friend about the vires. I do not believe that it would be impossible to draft the provision in a somewhat narrower way, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested, even if it did not deal with the specific examples the Minister gave. With a rather wintry smile, he tried to entice me into pressing the amendment in order to offend share fishermen up and down the country—and I am not as stupid as I look!
536
However, before Third Reading, will the Minister consider whether this paragraph could be somewhat more narrowly drafted? I share the concern of noble Lords that it is so widely drafted that it could allow virtually any additional condition to be added to a jobseeker's allowance. From every point of view, that seems to me constitutionally undesirable. Therefore, I request the Minister to consider, not tonight at this late hour but before Third Reading, whether this paragraph could be more narrowly drafted. I urge him to look closely at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, hoping that he will respond in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [The back to work bonus]:
[Amendment No. 96H not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 21, line 30, after ("treating") insert ("the whole or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was busy contemplating what the noble Baroness said to me about the two groups and share fishermen and thinking that it might be quite nice to be in a fishing boat this evening. I have been present when there have been a few fishing expeditions as the evening has progressed. I am slightly thrown by the fact that Amendment No. 96H was withdrawn. However, I am now where I should be in the Marshalled List and I can stop talking about my desires to be in a fishing boat this evening and talk about Amendment No. 97. I am a patient fisherman when I get the chance.
Amendment No. 97 is a technical amendment designed to ensure that the policy intention of this subsection can be carried out. It has always been our intention, where partners' earnings have contributed to the accrual of a back-to-work bonus amount, that the partner should benefit from any payments under the scheme. In the normal course of events, where a claimant receives a bonus payment any benefit from it will be shared by the partner.
However, there are, of course, cases where couples separate during a benefit claim. The intention of the subsection is to ensure that where a partner's earnings have contributed to a bonus amount, that proportion can be transferred to a subsequent JSA or income support claim by the partner, provided that he or she makes a claim within the appropriate linking period.
As currently drafted, the subsection states that
"a prescribed part of an amount which has accrued towards a person's bonus"
can be treated as part of another person's bonus. Where it is solely partners' earnings which have caused the bonus amount to accrue, the present wording leaves some doubt as to whether the whole of the amount could be transferred to the partner's claim for JSA or income support. This amendment puts that right. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 21, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) The amount of the back-to-work bonus shall be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Ministers have said all night that the central theme of the Jobseekers Bill is to get people back to work. I thought at one stage that they might set it to music, it goes rather well to "Jerusalem". We can sing it tonight because that is what the amendment is about. It deals with the back-to-work bonus and tries to make it more effective. So we can all sing "Jerusalem".
The back-to-work bonus has had a good press, rather too good. The trouble is that it does not go far enough. Funnily enough, it has been little debated in this House and it was little debated in the other place. It is a somewhat bizarre idea. It is supposed to deal with the problem of people who are unemployed and who do certain amounts of part-time work but cannot get back into full-time work, significantly because if they get back into full-time work they will lose money because of the earnings rule. However, it does nothing about the earnings rule itself; it maintains the restrictions exactly as they are. It says: "If you go back into full-time work, we will give you back half of what we take away while you are unemployed".
Many things are wrong with the back-to-work bonus as an incentive to "Jerusalem". The most important is that it depends upon discovery. First, you have to know that the individual is earning more than £5, in order that you can take the rest of the money away, or deduct it from the individual jobseeker's allowance, keep it in the piggy bank and give it back to him when he has a full-time job. But we know that in the majority of cases, because of the rules, we do not get discovery—most people in such situations do not declare the money. Of course they do not; we cannot blame them for it; the rule is ridiculous.
The efficacy of the provision depends on discovery or a sudden mass outbreak of honesty among all charladies in the country. That is not very likely. But the Bill does not deal with the heart of the problem, which is the earnings rule. The Government say: "Somehow, if we do this, we shall know how much they have; we shall stop it and only give half of it back".
However, that is only the first problem. The second is that the poor person in that position who has actually owned up and had the money taken away so that 50 per cent. of it is due to come back, will not know how much there is. Is a person supposed to keep bobbing into the Jobcentre every week, asking, "How much is in the piggy bank?". When there is enough, the person cuts it in half and goes back to full-time work. That is the miracle which will get people back into work. But it is a one-off payment; once a person has had it, that is it, he cannot get it again. He would have to remain out of employment for a long time to get the piggy bank up, and then he will get 50 per cent. of that if he is caught at it. So we say that the back-to-work bonus is a weak provision that should be improved. We suggest in this amendment that one of the ways it might be improved is for it to be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation.
We know that the Government will say that that is no good because the back-to-work bonus is already indexed. In a sense it is, because it is 50 per cent. of what was declared. If that goes up, it is indexed. We are
538
not talking about it being indexed in that way. It might be possible, for example, for the Government to say that the 50 per cent. could rise to 75 per cent. It might even rise to 100 per cent. It might even be linked to a rather more sensible earnings rule. In other words, in all kinds of ways this bonus could be improved, because it is in a pretty sick way at the moment. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, to try to add anything to that speech would be to gild the lily. I wish, however, to ask a few questions. First, is it possible that a situation could arise whereby a person was, let us say, £5 short of earning the bonus in the piggy bank and the need to earn enough to complete the bonus could act as a disincentive to going into employment. Secondly, is any uprating of the bonus that might occur to be done by the Department of Employment or by the Department of Social Security? If it comes into the social security uprating statement, then it will be by affirmative procedure and we shall know what is done. Thirdly, can the Department of Employment find better ways of publicising the decisions it takes about uprating? For many years I tried to find out whether it was uprating the youth training allowance and the bridging allowance. It was very difficult to find anyone who had the first idea. If I were to put down a Question for annual Written Answer about what is being uprated and what is not, would it be answered, and could we institutionalise it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment seeks an annual review of the maximum amount payable under the back-to-work bonus, which we intend will be up to £1,000. The maximum will be £1,000 but the bonus will be up to £1,000 depending on what the claimant has accumulated.
If I understood it correctly the first question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was: will the; claimant decide to stay in benefit in order to accumulate the bonus? Perhaps I was wrong, but I had the impression that the noble Earl was under a misapprehension that either £1,000 could be claimed, or nothing at all. Since the bonus is up to £1,000, if a claimant has accumulated a bonus of, let us say, £400 on returning to work, that £400 is the amount that he will receive. The £1,000 figure is a maximum.
To turn to the interesting knock-about of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, one of the serious questions was: how will a claimant know how much he has banked, so to speak? I can tell the noble Lord that we shall be sending claimants regular quarterly statements of their position. I do not want to go into the matter in detail on this amendment, but I believe that it is an important part of encouraging people back to work. Interestingly enough, many people do declare their earnings. It is not true, as the noble Lord seems to think, that most people do not declare. Many do and will therefore be eligible. Even more might be encouraged to declare. But even without the additional number declaring, those who do will be eligible for the back-to-work bonus. That helps in this problem, which we all accepted and debated recently, although I was not able to give way to the

539
noble Baroness in her desires to uprate the £5 disregard. It also helps the other problem of the bridge between being out of work and returning to work and the additional costs that someone can often come up against in making that move. Also, an amount of up to £1,000 may give people a little more confidence in making that move. I should like to think that everybody thinks that at least the objectives behind the Government's move on this matter are well-judged, and I would like the proposal itself to be approved by your Lordships.
On the annual uprating question, so far as I can recall, the last time I had to do an annual uprating statement there seemed to be just about every figure imaginable on the piece of paper I had. Perhaps I may look at what the noble Earl had to say and write to him about the specific points that he raised. As I said, I did not have the impression from my brief—certainly I did not realise—that there quite so many different benefits, payments and so on, which either had to be up-rated annually or for which, in the case of many of them, Ministers were able to consider and decide whether or not to up-rate them.
The back-to-work bonus is designed to encourage people back to work. I trust that the payments will be seen as attractive for those participating in this particular scheme. We believe that the £1,000 is substantial. We do not have any proposals currently to up-rate the maximum limit on a regular basis, as suggested by the amendment. However, in line with our policy, as I explained briefly to the noble Earl, on a range of financial limits within the benefit system—for example, the earnings disregards—we keep the amount under review. The decision not to up-rate the maximum will not, in our view, devalue the incentive effect in any significant way, as up-rating the amount would be of a minor cash value, particularly while inflation is so low. It would not add anything to the particular attractions of this benefit for me to accept the noble Lord's amendment, but it has given me the opportunity to say a few words about the back-to-work bonus, which I regret has not received the attention that I believe it merits in your Lordships' House.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, as I understand it, the Minister is saying two things. First, he is saying that he has no proposals to up-rate the bonus, even the maximum £1,000; and, secondly, he will meanwhile be sending out regular notices telling people periodically how much they have in the kitty.
I wonder whether he can give any estimate of how many that will be? They will be part-time workers who are in receipt of income support, earn more than £5 and declare it to the Employment Service. I do not think that it will cost much money, but does he know how much?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was asking one question, but then, towards the end of his remarks, I thought that he was asking me another. Perhaps he might repeat the question.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I asked how much it will cost to send out and how many there will be. The one precise thing that the Minister is telling me in
540
answer to my question "How will they know how much they have in the kitty?" is that he will send them regular notices telling them how much. I wonder whether he has any idea of how many people will be covered and will have to have that information. Unless we know how many people are in that position, we have no idea, even in principle, of how useful the bonus might be.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to help the noble Lord. We expect that 150,000 bonuses will be paid in a full year to JSA claimants. We have no estimate of the administrative costs.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall not continue. The figure is 150,000 on the assumption that they will all declare it. However, at this time of night, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Employment of long-term unemployed: deductions by employers]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 21, line 43, at end insert ("or would qualify for disability working allowance upon taking up employment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. All three amendments seek to extend the employers' national insurance contributions holiday to disabled people.
Previous amendments have sought to include incapacity benefits as benefits which count towards qualifying for the employers' national insurance contributions holiday. At Committee stage in the other place the response from the Minister was that of cost. In this House, at the Committee stage, my noble friend the Minister intimated that disabled people were the wrong target. The holiday was,
"aimed at helping back into work people who have been capable of work but have not been able to find it rather than those who have been incapable of work"—[Official Report; 27/4/95; col. 1139]
Amendment No. 98 addresses the point made by the Minister; that is, that the holiday should target employers recruiting people who are capable of work. Disability working allowance is payable to people working more than 16 hours a week but who are disadvantaged in obtaining a job because of disability. It will enable a NIC holiday to be claimed by employers recruiting someone who would qualify for disability working allowance when taking up such employment.
Amendment No. 99 includes a period when someone is claiming disability working allowance towards the two years continuous receipt of jobseeker's allowance. Amendment No. 100 enables people to count periods of benefit, like incapacity benefit, towards the two years on jobseeker's allowance required in order to count as a qualifying employee for the NIC holiday. That could help some of the 150,000 disabled people expected to move from incapacity benefit onto jobseeker's allowance in 1996–97, many of whom may have been on incapacity benefit for over two years. It would enable such people to count a period on other benefits towards the qualifying two years on jobseeker's allowance.
Extending the NIC holiday could result in savings to the state as well as to the employer. For instance, someone moving from unemployment benefit to an average wage of £352 a week could attract a national insurance holiday for an employer of £1,869 a year, and save the Government over £10,000 a year in benefits and increased revenue. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, these amendments are good for disabled people, good for employers and good for the Government. It will be interesting to see what contortions the Minister gets into in order to reject them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I can look first at Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 without contortions. It will come as no surprise to the House that the amendments are technically unnecessary because, as I have explained previously, the clause already contains a power to extend by regulations the scope of the national insurance holiday to other groups of people.
We have proposed a well-targeted and affordable package of work incentive measures to help people back into work. This includes incentives both for the individual and for the employers. It is the national insurance holiday which provides an incentive to employers by encouraging them to offer job opportunities to the long-term unemployed. As I have said before to the House, it is aimed at helping people back into work who have been capable of work but have not been able to find it, rather than those who have been incapable of work. It is about helping people who are in and have been in the labour market for two years or more but have been unable to find work. It would not be appropriate to accept that periods of disability working allowance during which the person must be in work should count towards satisfying the two-year qualifying condition.
Disabled people, whom this amendment seeks to assist, receive other help in returning to work. Disability working allowance is available at a more generous rate than family credit to increase the income of some disabled people in work. Housing benefit and council tax benefit contain extra premiums for disability which again increase the amount of benefits they receive. I recognise that these benefits provide help for disabled people themselves and not to prospective employers, but extending the holiday to this group would go beyond our aim of helping those who have been in the market for a long time without being able to find work. This is where we consider that the need is greatest and where we should target the resources we have at our disposal.
What I can say to my noble friend is that we shall of course be carefully monitoring and evaluating the success of the scheme and would not rule out extending it further in some way if it became clear that there was value in doing so. For now we need to introduce the scheme within the cost constraints which apply and that means focusing the help essentially on the long-term unemployed.
In Amendment No. 100, my noble friend seeks to widen the scope of the holiday so that people who have been sick during the two-year qualifying period would also satisfy the qualifying conditions. We recognise that it might be appropriate to provide for some latitude in
542
the qualifying period so that, for example, small periods of sickness could be ignored. That is why we have taken a power at subsections (6) (a) and (b) to treat people who would not otherwise satisfy the principal conditions as satisfying them.
At this stage we have not decided to what extent the qualifying conditions should be modified under this provision. My noble friend will, no doubt, continue to press me to include people who have been sick throughout the two-year qualifying period. It will come as no surprise to my noble friend that I cannot agree that we should extend the qualifying conditions for the holiday to that extent. This would go beyond our aim of helping those who have been in the labour market for a long time without being able to find work. This is where we consider that the need is greatest and where we should target resources.
As I said, we will be carefully monitoring and evaluating the success of the scheme and I have mentioned to my noble friend that that; would not rule out extending it further in some way if it became clear that there was clear value in doing so.
With that explanation of why we want to concentrate on the long-term unemployed, and with just a little look into the future and the fact that our minds are not closed to it and to making changes, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend offered me a mixed bag of sweeties, some of which I like and others I do not particularly like. But at this hour of the night I shall reserve my position on these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Pilot schemes]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 24, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) A pilot scheme under this section may be introduced only after consultation with such bodies or organisations in the specified area or locality as seem appropriate, but wherever possible such consultation shall include organisations representative of employers and employees.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that we are in favour of schemes designed to get people back to work. We are in favour of pilot schemes as well—at least I think we are—although we have not had much opportunity to debate them in this House. We want to make sure that these are suitable and successful. If they are not, they will simply be seen as yet another initiative that loses credibility because it does nothing for the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed.
We believe that one of the ways of achieving success would be by the involvement of local people, and/or organisations, which have specifically concerned themselves with employment in the area concerned. We believe that this means involving representatives of employers and employees in the area. After all, they have the task on the ground, so to speak, of representing the interests of job providers and job holders, and also

543
jobseekers. Most unions nowadays have arrangements for retaining in membership those of its members who become unemployed and providing them with a range of services, normally without requiring a subscription. That is certainly true of my own union. We have been anxious to ensure that those who become unemployed retain their links with the union and are not simply cast out once they lose the job which rendered them eligible for membership. There are other organisations too which might profitably be involved in consultations.
I hope that the Minister will not deride this amendment as being unnecessary or perhaps even undesirable. It has been worded carefully. There may well be places where such bodies do not exist and we have said that,
"wherever possible such consultation shall include organisations representative of employers and employees".
There is one question which I would like to pose to the Minister as regards these pilot schemes. I understand that they will not be able to vary the amounts of benefit payable. Will the schemes have any role in relation to benefit sanctions? Can they have any part in extending the period during which a JSA will be payable if there are sanctions? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a positive way. I hope that he will appreciate that the amendment is well-intentioned and will therefore be prepared to accept it or, if not this wording, at least something similar. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly would not say that the amendment was wide of the mark, but I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness that it is not needed. Normal consultation procedures will precede the introduction of any pilot regulation. Proposals for pilot regulations will be submitted first to the Social Security Advisory Committee, in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act. Your Lordships will be aware that this is the normal conduit for outside comment on social security legislation. We shall of course consult other organisations in the usual way if we consider that to be necessary. For example, any change involving housing benefit or council tax benefit will necessarily involve consultation with local authority associations. It may on occasion be appropriate to consult bodies representing employers and employees. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that on the question of who shall be consulted much depends on the nature of the pilot under consideration.
The pilot power is an innovation in social security in that it allows measures to be tested for effectiveness in advance of national implementation. However, regulations drawn under it will be subject to at least the same level of consultation and legislative scrutiny as they would be if introduced nationally. In some cases, the level of scrutiny may even be higher, since all pilot regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution, whereas for a national change introduced under normal arrangements this might not always be the case.
The noble Baroness asked me whether pilots can be used for benefit sanctions. Regulations can be piloted under all the powers of the Jobseekers Bill. The provision would have to be within the scope of the
544
powers and would have to be intended to promote employment, so there are some tests, so to speak, that any pilot proposed would have to obey before anyone could set up an experiment—a pilot—under these pilot regulations in the future. I hope that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but I simply do not understand that. I was led to believe that within a pilot scheme the Minister (or the Government) may not change or modify the rates of benefit payable; they have to be nationally determined. We were trying to find out whether, nonetheless, within a pilot scheme there may be a dispensation from the existing rules of sanction—either to be more generous or to be harsher. Can the Minister answer that simply? I did not understand the answer as he formulated it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I gave that answer. I said that the regulations can be piloted under all the powers of the Jobseekers Bill, and that provision would have to be within the scope of the powers and would have to be intended to promote employment, which is the underlying raison d'être of the pilots. They are supposed to aim to promote employment. As it is a bit late, I shall look into the point that the noble Baroness has made and shall try to come back to her more clearly in the next few days.
In conclusion, as I have explained, we shall be consulting through the Social Security Advisory Committee and it, in turn, will consult all those that it usually consults. We shall also, where necessary, consult with those people we feel appropriate, given the nature of the pilot. As we would want any pilot to succeed, clearly we would want to consult all the people who might be involved in or affected by the pilot-employers, unions, local authorities or whoever.
Perhaps I may clarify one point to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We certainly cannot reduce benefit rates. We have always made that clear. We have never said that pilots can affect overall income levels, and indeed sanctions. However, I shall return to that in the next few days when I examine the questions that the noble Baroness put to me.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position on this amendment, and I am glad to learn that the intention is to have very wide consultation with all appropriate organisations in relation to pilot schemes. I particularly welcome the involvement of the Social Security Advisory Committee—a broadly based body—the recommendations of which are normally very highly respected. I note what has been said about the inability to reduce rates of benefit. We welcome that assurance. I am glad that the Minister has undertaken to reply to my noble friend Lady Hollis on the sanctions issue that she raised.
In the light of the Minister's statement, which will be in Hansard tomorrow, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Interpretation]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 29, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 and 107. The amendments make small adjustments to the definitions of "earnings" and "employment" which will apply in JSA. Amendments Nos. 102 and 107 are designed to remove from the definition of "earnings" certain payments which will not be regarded as earnings for JSA purposes, and to ensure that the definition which is used is aligned fully with income support practice.
The new definition retains the reference to Section 3 of the Benefits Act, which provides the basic definition of earnings that will be used in JSA—payments which are,
"remuneration or profit derived from an employment".
It removes the cross-reference to Section 4 of the Benefits Act. Section 4 provides principally that certain payments, including statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, are to be treated as earnings. It is not our intention to regard those as earnings for JSA. Claimants could not receive them because they are incompatible with jobseeking, and where the partner of an income-based claimant receives them they will simply be counted as normal income. I think it is clear that they do not fall within our basic definition.
Your Lordships will not fail to have noticed that we have also made the definition subject to any regulations. That is because the basic definition "remuneration or profit" needs some interpretation and we consider it sensible for the Government to be able to provide that as necessary through regulations. Otherwise, we could find that it was interpreted far more widely or narrowly than we had intended. Perhaps I may give an example. In unemployment benefit at the moment that definition has been taken to include certain payments in kind. For JSA we would wish to be sure that such payments were not taken to be earnings, in line with the practice in income support. It is also the case that employers are adopting increasingly flexible work and remuneration packages. The benefit system needs to keep up with that and to be able to reflect those new patterns in its definitions. The regulation-making provision will enable us to iron out any problems that arise by prescribing what is and is not to be included, and it will also ensure that JSA keeps in step with income support.
I turn now to Amendment No. 103. Clause 7(8) defines "employment" for the purposes of that clause to mean, in layman's language, employment or self-employment. Jobseekers will be able to seek self-employment actively if they prefer instead of, or as well as, employed work. Regulations will be made under Clause 7(6) to provide that, in the case of a young person, "employment", as it applies in the term "actively seeking employment", will include training as well as employment. That will allow young people actively to seek training as well as employment. That requires a consequential amendment to Clause 34 to exclude the general definition of employment from Clause 7.
This is a technical, tidying-up amendment and I urge your Lordships to accept it, together with the other two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 29, line 23, after (""employment"") insert (", except in section 7,").
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 30, line 31, at end insert:
(""training" has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act and, in relation to prescribed provisions of this Act, if regulations so provide, includes assistance to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such a kind as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I gave the Minister notice when we debated this matter earlier and a few minutes ago that I am not yet happy with the amendment. If the Minister were able to reassure me I would be grateful. The Minister knows that I am concerned that we have definitions that are meaningful, that are: watertight and that we are capable of understanding. What we have here is:
"'training' has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act".
I recall the Minister being asked in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whether he could give any previous example of where we have been told in legislation that words have a meaning that shall be prescribed. I too would like to know the answer to that question because it is of importance.
I would also like to know—and it is the only thing that could reassure me about the wording of the amendment—the extent to which the power to call anything "training" is restricted by the words "for the purposes of this Act". Or is that restriction not as powerful as I would have hoped because many of the purposes of this Act are hereafter to be disclosed?
The second part of the amendment, which relates to assistance to find training or improving a person's prospects of being employed, is in principle more welcome. But that part of the amendment is to come into force only if regulations so provide. We are not told whether the Secretary of State will be graciously pleased to make regulations or whether this is just an empty provision in case he might feel like playing with it some time in the future. The assistance too is:
"of such a kind as may be prescribed".
When the Minister brings to this House proposals to grant him vires he will have to get used to being asked what else could be done under those vires. That is a question that all Parliaments ought to ask at all times. Personally, I intend to continue to ask it. For example, at present training is governed by provisions similar to those governing training allowance. One has to register for youth training in order to receive training allowance. Can the Government guarantee that they will continue to change the provisions for training and training allowance at the same time?
I understand that there is no present intention to introduce workfare. I am not attempting to create a scare about that. However, if some future Government—and I am not assuming that this Government with this

547
Leader will necessarily be in office for the remainder of this Parliament—were to wish to introduce workfare, could they do so under these vires without the need for additional legislation? If the Opposition's proposals for citizen's service were to be put forward, could they be introduced under these vires without any need for primary legislation?
If a future Government were to decide to reintroduce National Service, could that be done under these vires without the need for primary legislation? They are real questions and I ask them because I do not know the answers. None of those things should be carried out without primary legislation giving us a good chance to look at what is being done.
I have already asked the Minister whether he could avoid difficulties by not pressing this amendment at this time of night, as I have refrained from pressing amendments on the definition of training which were not congenial to the Minister. It is perhaps possible that by rather less public consultation we might be able to find a way of satisfying each other before Third Reading. I fear that on Third Reading we might reach the provisions at very much the same time of night since they come at the end of the Bill. Is the Minister able to do anything to help me about that matter or are we left eyeball to eyeball? I would rather avoid that if possible.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Earl has raised a number of points. I must return to some of the comments that were made when we debated the matter yesterday. I explained that the definition locked in with the proposals that we have made regarding training and other assistance. As the noble Earl pointed out, the definition in the amendment contains a number of elements. It begins by stating:
"'training' has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act".
One of the points which the noble Earl raised was how the meaning of "training" might be changed in hypothetical circumstances and whether that in turn would flow across into other legislation. It is clear from this clause that the meaning which "training" is given in this context is restricted to this piece of legislation. I hope that that narrows the compass of what we are talking about.
It also—and this is important in the context of where we are now—relates to a definition which includes, where appropriate:
"assistance to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such a kind as may be prescribed".
That is important because if we go back to the debate which we had last night, part of the point of this change was that it was, in turn, part of a series of changes which dealt with the wider issue of other assistance.
If we lose that definition it will have a consequential effect on the scope of the Bill in so far as it relates to other assistance as I have described it. Therefore, if we lose that definition it will have a potential knock-on effect on something about which there was no disagreement, something which was desirable.
548
While we have no intention of prescribing a meaning to that at present, because at this stage we have no plans to introduce other assistance, we believe that we need the power because in future we may wish to include job preparation courses or education which are not, in themselves, in the nature of training. But we provide that such other assistance should be such that it will improve the jobseeker's job prospects, which is consistent with the argument that I have used and my explanation of the purpose of this legislation.
The crucial point that was raised by the noble Earl was about the meaning of "training". What does the meaning of "training" amount to? How far can that definition go? Can it include, as the noble Earl suggested, workfare? The precise meaning which will be given in regulations, if the amendment is made, has already been given to the House in the exposition that I gave yesterday. We have in mind something along the lines of training for young people provided directly or indirectly pursuant to an operating agreement between the Secretary of State and the TEC. That does not satisfy the noble Earl because he is concerned about what may be described as an "oppressive" government would do. I am advised that the word "training" must mean training or assistance of the kind described in the amendment. In our view, it cannot have a meaning which could be extended beyond that. For example, it cannot encompass ordinary employment.
Training has a natural meaning. It is not possible to define exactly a meaning extending beyond that except with the addition of "other assistance" which is limited to assistance,
"to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed".
The power to prescribe the meaning of "training" in regulations allows us to prescribe a precise meaning for the particular training that we are talking about whereas, if a definition were to be written onto the face of the Bill, inevitably it would have to be extremely wide. I do not believe that that would necessarily be of assistance in trying to help jobseekers, whether they be younger or older, to have a successful jobsearch because your Lordships will remember that, in speaking earlier about the steps which the Employment Service is trying to take in relation to schemes, the key element is that the schemes are those onto which the Employment Service puts the jobseeker. Therefore, we wish to be able to define the relevant schemes for those purposes by reference to what the Employment Service will be wanting to do. I very much hope that that will reassure the noble Earl and that he will feel able, as a result, to withdraw his objections to the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his help. However, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I might ask for a little further assistance on two points. First, I am not quite clear as to the nature of "the purposes of the legislation; secondly, I am not quite sure about the meaning of "training" such as described in the amendment. Is the Minister telling me that it can only be found to be training if it involves assistance to find training or

549
employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed? If the Minister could say yes to that question, it would materially assist me.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that the meaning of the phrase "for the purposes of in the legislation means that where it is used—and it obviously is used in a particular context in the legislation—that is where the definition applies. I am clear in my mind in that respect.
The noble Earl asked me to look carefully at the exact relationship between "training" in Amendment No. 105 and the second part of that definition. I hope that the noble Earl will allow me to look further at the amendment while I stand at the Dispatch Box so that I may give him a satisfactory reply. I now see that training is defined there only if it is appropriately provided for within the regulations. That would include assistance, and so on,
"to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such kind as may be prescribed".
The first element of that means that training will have a wider meaning than something which is included. It must follow—must it not?—that the greater includes the less. Therefore, as I said earlier, it seems to me that training cannot have a meaning wider than that which the word could normally have. I return to what I said at the outset. We are talking about the definition of training in this particular piece of legislation; and, indeed, in the particular places where it falls in the legislation. There is no logical reason why the definition of the word "training" need be the same in each individual clause of the Bill.
Therefore, it must be within the scope of the Bill; it must fall within its ordinary meaning; and it can have the characteristics given in the definition. If one looks at the way in which the definition is drawn—or, for that matter, how a definition might be drawn in any other way—I do not see how it could actually contain the danger of oppression of the kind described by the noble Earl. I say that because the word "training" has a meaning. I do not believe that one can read into the meaning of the word "training" in that context the wider meanings of the type about which the noble Earl is concerned.
[Amendments Nos. 106 and 106A not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 30, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Subject to any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection, "earnings" is to be construed for the purposes of this Act in accordance with section 3 of the Benefits Act and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act.").
Clause 36 [Parliamentary control]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 31, line 27, after ("section") insert ("6, 7,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 and 114. The amendments fulfil the commitment I made in my
550
response to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when we discussed the issue of parliamentary control of regulations on availability for employment and actively seeking employment during the recommitment stage last Thursday. The amendments have the effect of ensuring that whenever regulations are made under Clauses 6 or 7 they must be approved by affirmative resolution of each House.
I said in our earlier debate that I accepted that there is real concern in both Houses that regulations that affect the meaning and treatment of the two terms, "availability" and "actively seeking", should receive the full and proper scrutiny of Parliament. I made it clear that we took the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee very seriously when it asked the House to consider whether the affirmative procedure should apply to these terms. These amendments, I believe, address these concerns in full.
Amendment No. 114 tidies up one small measure in the Bill, and is consequential on the changes we introduced at the recommitment of Clause 6. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 6 was split into three parts. Clause 7 now deals exclusively with actively seeking employment. This amendment is consequential on the fact that Clause 6(6), as it was, has now been split into Clause 6(6) and Clause 7(7). This amendment extends the provision to cover Clause 7(7). It restores the original intention in that regard. But I believe the main amendments, which I am sure your Lordships will welcome, are Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, which make Clauses 6 and 7 subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for detaining the House just long enough to thank the Minister warmly for those amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 108A and 108B not moved.]
12 midnight.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 31, line 33, after ("section") insert ("6, 7,").
Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 38, line 41, at end insert:
("The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)
. In section 31(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (definition of "whole estate of the debtor"), for "section 89(2)" substitute "sections 71(10B), 78(3B) and 89(2)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the need for Amendment No. 110 arises from the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 31. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 31 concerns the treatment of jobseeker's allowance in insolvency cases and provides that where an amount is deducted from JSA for the recovery of overpayments or social fund awards, that amount shall not be treated as income for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 and

551
the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. This consequential amendment simply provides for the Scottish bankruptcy Act to be amended accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:
Page 43, line 33, leave out from ("not") to ("and") and insert ("entitled to a jobseeker's allowance").
Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("not") to end of line 36 and insert ("entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 44, line 5, at end insert ("and where a disability premium is not in payment, he shall fall to be assessed under section 129(1) (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move the final amendment for discussion this evening and I shall endeavour to do so as quickly as I can. The purpose of the amendment is to enable people on jobseeker's allowance to claim disability working allowance where they pass the "disadvantage" test, even where a disability premium is not in payment. When the disability working allowance was introduced, the Government expected a caseload of 50,000 people. Yet by the end of last year only 7,247 people were receiving it. That is recorded in Hansard for the other place on 28th November this year at col. 524. That cannot be right; I mean last year. We are a forward looking House but not quite as far forward looking as that. I can find the reference for the Minister, if he requires it.
Its take-up is the poorest of any benefit. Research undertaken by the independent Policy Studies Institute found that less than one-sixth of those eligible were claiming it. Unless the caseload increases more dramatically, the Policy Studies Institute estimates that it will be another 25 years before the target of 850,000 recipients is reached. But the changes to incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance are likely to reduce this possibility still further. With more people coming off incapacity benefit to sign on for jobseeker's allowance, the pool of people eligible for disability working allowance will fall as a result of the qualifying conditions for disability working allowance.
In order to qualify for DWA, unless in receipt of disability living allowance or similar benefits, someone must have been receiving an incapacity benefit or disability premium within eight weeks of their claim. Many people coming off incapacity benefit and signing on for jobseeker's allowance will not have any entitlement to the disability premium.
The amendment seeks to allow the self-assessment disadvantage test used at renewal stage to be the basis for entitlement to disability working allowance where people do not qualify on other grounds. It would go some way towards extending disability working allowance to disabled people who obtain work but are debarred from that allowance because they no longer have a qualifying benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to make one point to the Minister. Those of us who slogged through the Bill which introduced the DLA and DWA remember the Government's expectation of a caseload of 50,000, as the noble Lord mentioned. At the time we expected a caseload of 16,000. It is very worrying that the actual figure is only just over 7,000. As the noble Lord said, fewer than one-sixth of those eligible claim the benefit. It will be interesting if the Minister can tell us, either now or later in writing, what action the Government are taking to ensure that the benefit is taken up as it should be.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment, if passed, would ensure that where JSA is not a qualifying benefit for disability working allowance because the claimant is not eligible for the disability premium, the claimant may still be considered for disability working allowance.
Disability working allowance is designed to help some people on long-term incapacity benefits to make the difficult transition into work. It provides a top-up for people who have a limited earning capacity because of an illness or disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job.
The best way of targeting disability working allowance is through a connection with incapacity and disability benefits. The qualifying benefit test requires that a person must either be receiving disability living allowance, or a similar benefit, or within 56 days before they claimed disability working allowance, they must have been receiving the higher rate short-term incapacity benefit or long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance or a disability premium with income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The qualifying benefit test is important in two ways. First, the connection with an incapacity benefit provides an effective measure of disability which obviates the need for a medical examination for new disability working allowance claims. Secondly, it ensures that the resources available are directed to those with greatest need.
The Government are committed to the success of disability working allowance. Although the caseload is small, it has been growing steadily since it was introduced in 1992. We are aware that take-up is slower than we thought it would be. We have commissioned research by the Policy Studies Institute as part of the evaluation of the benefit. Its final report is due in 1996. Any fundamental changes to DWA would be premature in advance of a full evaluation.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we are committed to raising awareness. We want awareness to be high. We have produced videos in conjunction with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and MENCAP. We have advertised in the jobs pages of the local press and produced a magazine, New Start. So we have made efforts to increase the caseload. It is growing steadily but it has a long way to go before it meets the legitimate expectations of all those who supported DWA at the time of its introduction.

553
I hope with that explanation my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. I shall read what my noble friend said, and it is possible that I may return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 45, line 38, after ("6(6)") insert ("or 7(7)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
House adjourned at ten minutes past midnight.