HL Deb 07 July 2003 vol 651 cc80-93

7.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft regulations will bring into force from 12th April 2004 work-focused interviews for the partners of recipients of certain social security benefits. This new requirement will apply where the amount of benefit in payment includes an amount for that partner and where both are aged below 60.

As a condition of continued receipt of the full amount of benefit payable, the partner will be required to take part in an interview at or after the 26 week point of the claim.

Since we came to power our welfare-to-work initiatives have helped transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. One of our greatest successes has been in helping lone parents into work. In the past five years the percentage of lone parents in work has increased from just over 40 per cent to nearly 54 per cent. We want to do even better.

Work-focused interviews have been the keystone to our success with lone parents. They are the mechanism by which we can ensure that everyone understands the opportunities available to them so that those who want to work may do so.

I draw the analogy with lone parents quite deliberately because what is required is the work-focused interview. What is not required is joining the new deal or going into work subsequently. But the interview empowers lone parents by giving him or her information and placing him or her in a position to make the choices that he or she may need to make.

The regulations will place a requirement on partners to discuss their individual skills, experience and circumstances with an adviser so that they may be made aware of the practical support and financial help that is available to them to find work now or in the future. The partner will be provided with a personal and tailored service and given access to a wide range of help and information on work, benefits and services available.

Apart from attending the interview, no other requirement will be placed upon them. They will not be required to find work or to join a new deal programme, and advisers will operate the scheme in a way that takes account of individual circumstances—for example, the health of the person they may be with, or their own circumstances—in a sensitive way. Taking part in one work-focused interview six months after both of them have been on benefit is not an onerous requirement. Where the partner, however, fails to take part in an interview without showing good cause or explanation for that failure, the claimant's benefit will be reduced until he or she complies. I shall go on to talk about good cause later, but your Lordships will be pleased to learn that both the claimant and the partner will have a right of appeal against the decision.

As I said, we will implement this requirement sensitively. The regulations contain a number of safeguards to protect those who may have difficulty with the requirement. It may not always be appropriate to interview someone at the required time—for example, a partner may recently have been discharged from hospital or may have just given birth. Obviously, in those circumstances the interview will be deferred.

In other circumstances—for example, if a partner has recently had an interview with an adviser as a benefit claimant in his or her own right—the requirement would normally not apply. There may also be circumstances where it is not appropriate at all to call a partner in for interview—for example, where someone is terminally ill. Where a partner has had the interview waived or deferred, he or she will be treated as having met the requirement.

The benefits to which the regulations will apply are jobseeker's allowance (income based, not contribution based), income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, and carer's allowance. These are the main benefits payable to people of working age.

In order to provide good customer service, we have ensured that where the benefit recipient is entitled to a number of specified benefits at the same time the partner will only be required to take part in one interview, and not separate interviews for each benefit. We have also provided flexibility for an interview to be conducted in a location other than in a Jobcentre Plus office, including the arrangement of a home visit where partners cannot be reasonably be expected to visit an office.

I now turn to the interview and to "good cause". The interview should be a meaningful two-way discussion between the partner and the personal adviser. By taking account of an individual's circumstances, advisers will help partners to explore ways in which they can overcome barriers to work and move closer to the labour market. In return, partners will be required to participate actively in the interview.

The test of whether partners have taken part will be whether they attend at the time and place specified, and whether they provide information in areas relevant to their employment prospects, such as their level of education, previous work history and any barriers to the work they seek.

The consequences of a partner not taking part in an interview where neither the partner nor the claimant has shown good cause within five working days can lead to the claimant's benefit begin reduced. However, partners will then have a further month to provide evidence of good cause for not taking part in the interview if they wish to avoid the reduction provided that that evidence could not reasonably have been provided within five working days of the day on which the interview was to take place. So, for example, if someone had an extended period of hospitalisation, this would give that person the space to come back to us.

Examples of circumstances of what constitutes good cause for not taking part in an interview are set out in the regulations—for instance, if someone suffers an accident or illness on the day set for interview or where people have misunderstood the requirements placed upon them because of language or learning difficulties.

The level of the reduction will follow the rate of sanction applied during a claim in other work-focused interview regimes, which is an amount equivalent to 20 per cent of the personal rate of income support for a person aged 25 or over. So currently the reduction would be £10.93 per week, or in the range of 5 per cent or 7 or 8 per cent for a couple with children.

The regulations also stipulate how the sanction will be applied if the individual is claiming more than one benefit, as well as prioritising the benefits against which the reduction should be applied. Of course, no sanction will be applied against any benefit not included in the list of specified benefits and the total reduction will not exceed the amount set.

In addition, the regulations ensure that the claimant retains entitlement to a nominal amount of each benefit, to prevent the claim from lapsing and to ensure that entitlement to any "passported benefits", such as housing benefit or NHS prescription charges, remains.

I hope that your Lordships will understand what we are seeking to do with these regulations. I do not think that we are asking anyone to do anything unreasonable. Partners will be required to do no more than discuss their situation and work aspirations with an adviser so that they are aware of the practical and financial help that is on offer. It is certainly the case that very often, in particular parts of the country, a partner of someone claiming JSA is more likely to be able to find work than the person claiming the JSA and yet that person may not be aware of the opportunities or the help and support we can give. But we will ensure that we make people aware of the opportunities available to them, including, for example, possible eligibility to claim tax credits, childcare and all the rest of the benefits that may come into play.

Participation in a work-focused interview is a central element of this policy. I am satisfied that these draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend them to the House.

I emphasise again that the regulations simply provide a requirement that, after six months, partners attend a work-focused interview—one interview only. Nothing else need subsequently follow. They need not join the new deal—although I hope that they will. They need not seek work although I hope that they will. They may not find a job—but I hope that, if that is their choice, they do. But this is not going to be voluntary. That is why a sanction is attached—which I very much hope will not be needed. As I say, I believe that this is the kind of interview that people need to attend and find out what the situation is. Where work-focused interviews have taken place, they have been hugely successful. With that, I hope that your Lordships will agree the regulations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins

My Lords, the House, as always, will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the context of the regulations. Inevitably, the drafting is sometimes rather technical. One therefore relies on the Explanatory Note. As I have had occasion to say on previous occasions, I do not think that those writing explanatory notes achieve the degree of clarity that one might desire.

I take as an example the first paragraph of the Explanatory Note attached to these regulations. It states: These Regulations impose a requirement on the partners of claimants of certain benefits to take part in a work-focused interview Can interview') where the claimant is entitled to that benefit at a higher rate referable to the partner". I literally do not understand what that paragraph means. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to look at the note.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am trying to find the paragraph to which the noble Lord refers.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I am looking at the draft regulations and at the Explanatory Note attached on a final page. I do not understand what the expression "referable to the partner" means. No doubt when the noble Baroness comes to reply she can clarify it. I also believe that the word ought to be "when" rather than "where".

Leaving that aside, I believe it is important that the Explanatory Note should be drafted in rather clearer terms than is sometimes the case. I have found several other such examples. However, I shall not bore the House by going into the matter further—save to say that perhaps the noble Baroness will remind us of the definition of "partner" in this context.

The noble Baroness stressed strongly that there was to be only one interview. Therefore, I am somewhat puzzled by the final part of the third paragraph of the Explanatory Note, which states: Regulation 8 specifies when a requirement to take part in two or more interviews is satisfied by the partner taking part in a single interview". The noble Baroness has said that partners are required to take part in only a single interview. I am not clear in what circumstances they may be required to take part in two, but in fact can arrange to take part in only one. Again, the drafting of the explanatory memorandum could be clearer.

In her opening remarks the Minister drew attention to the situation regarding lone parents, and suggested that the success rate had increased from 46 to 54 per cent. However, as I understand it, the Government are currently rolling out compulsory work-focused interviews to all lone parents on income support. During the pilot phase only 17 per cent of lone parents due to have a compulsory interview received an invitation letter and only 14 per cent attended the interview. I have some difficulty in reconciling that figure with the figure of 46 per cent rising to 54 per cent which the Minister mentioned. Even the interviews that were attended have been criticised by various studies of the pilot scheme, including a comment that the interviews that did happen did not seem to encourage those few who attended to get into work. The study found that the proportion of lone parents in work, 18 months after claiming benefit, was lower in the pilot areas than elsewhere. That suggests that the pilot areas were not an enormous success.

Similarly, regarding the position with disabilities, another study said that in practice personal advisers felt that the pilots were driven by placement targets. In another place this evening there is a debate about the problems of targets. The study went on to say that rather than being able to help all clients in making moves towards the labour market, the main priority was given to targets for placing clients on job seekers' allowance into jobs, while other targets, particularly for the number of new claims processed, put further pressure on any scope for working with clients on incapacity benefits.

It seems that the Jobcentre Plus scheme has had only a comparatively limited effect. Looking at the overall picture, it has been difficult to obtain any figures on this issue, although attempts to do so are being made by way of parliamentary Questions. In February the then pensions Minister said that separate data for sustained jobs were not available for the New Deal for 50 Plus, the New Deal for Lone Parents, or the New Deal for Partners. It is important that if someone moves into a job the relevant consideration is how long they remain there. Perhaps the Minister can inform us whether there are any relevant statistics on how many of these people move into permanent jobs. We also have no figures for the cost per job of helping people into employment. Succeeding in doing that is a great advantage, particularly for the individual concerned, but one ought to have some appraisal of cost benefit analysis.

The Minister stressed the penalties for not attending an interview. I am not clear to what extent that has already happened regarding the pilots. I am also puzzled by one aspect which I believe we have discussed previously—that benefits might be reduced to allow for the fact that the partner has not taken part in an interview. Apparently they should never go below 10 pence. I have forgotten why, if the penalty is imposed—it would be hefty penalty if one progressively withdrew all those benefits because a partner was not attending the interviews—the benefit never falls below 10 pence. I may have misunderstood that structure. In any case, the explanatory memorandum does not give any guidance on that matter.

There has been much research into the way in which the pilots and the introduction of various schemes for lone parents, people with disabilities and so on have operated. This seems to be something of a cottage industry. There appears to have been a growth in employment in studying how these various proposals work. We are anxious that they should work. It is of great importance to the individuals concerned and to the economy. Regarding the general principle, one understands why the Government feel that this action should be taken for partners of those who are claiming benefit, so that if possible both they and the economy should benefit from both of them participating in employment. These are difficult matters and the Minister seemed over-optimistic on whether any significant success had been achieved. We must hope that this action results in greater employment, but we have doubts, given the history thus far.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the regulations are paved with good intentions. The Minister will remember a series of exchanges that we have had about the principle of this at every stage of the passage of the legislation through the House. So I do not expect to surprise the noble Baroness greatly by my comments tonight. But perhaps I may save her a small amount of work regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the surviving benefit of 10 pence. Am I right in supposing that that will continue as a passport to housing benefit? If so it serves a useful, necessary and sensible purpose, and diminishes the force of the criticisms that I might otherwise have made and of the indignation which I might otherwise feel.

We have a balance of argument. I can see why the Minister and the Government wanted to introduce some sort of provision for partners. The days when men must work and women must weep are very long gone. We should all be glad of that. So, because someone's partner has been working, that does not necessarily shed any light on whether they should work. The fact that the Government want to have interviews for partners, to see whether they can be found a suitable opportunity for working, is something that we should welcome. However, there is here an undistributed middle that is of some importance. On these Benches, we move heaven and earth to try to get an opportunity to work for those partners who want to do so. We believe categorically in choice.

The Minister has many times given an undertaking, which I accept, that no one under these provisions will be compelled to work. That is clear. However, there is a grey area that was slightly touched on in the Statement on the latest Green Paper on pensions, where people might talk about "encouraging" partners with children to work. That puts us on these Benches in greater doubt. The juggling necessary to combine children with work is a particular skill—just like going under the bonnet of a car engine and seeing what happens there. Some of us have that skill, some of us do not. It is not the business of the state to decide for people, or even to encourage them to decide, which way they should do that. The matter is strictly personal. The state should be helping them to choose whichever way they wish to go, no matter which way that might be. If the regulations were to be a precursor of any serious encouragement to both partners to work when they have young children, that would cause us concern.

The Minister has always said that the purpose of the interviews was that you do not know what you do not know. I take that point. However, although the Minister is undoubtedly right, it seems that people who have partners in work are more likely to be in work themselves.

According to the findings of the House of Commons Library, that appears to be nothing to do with work-focused interviews where we have carried out pilots. It reports that no evidence was found of an effect on labour-market participation and that the analysis of respondents' job-search behaviour found no difference between pilots and control respondents in the proportions of non-working lone parents looking for a job or delaying a search for work. Nor were there any differences between them in the methods used to find a job.

As regards further study of the pilot, there could be a significant finding. We have an immense amount of administrative effort which does not appear to be issuing in any particularly solid result. That is a point at which one might well pause and ask a few questions.

I take absolutely the Minister's point that our requirement is only one interview and that there is no pressure to work beyond that. When the Bill was before us, I made the point that it would produce fear and distress. Carers UK has discovered that that has turned out to be the case. It states that judging by calls to its helpline there is a problem in the style and approach to carers. Many find that insensitive and it seems to place a large degree of worry on stressful caring responsibility. It believes that it undermines carers' self-worth because it suggests that work is considered the only valuable activity.

If that is so, it should be a cause for concern. One does not want to cause that kind of reaction and one knows that people dealing with the welfare state often do so in a state of considerable anxiety. No doubt some of it is unjustified, but where that is the case, one wants to make it plain that that is the case and the creation of fear is not a useful process.

Furthermore, there is a specific problem with Bangladeshis. The Disability Alliance informs me that there is no specific word for "carer" in Sylheti, which is regularly spoken among Bangladeshis, because it is regarded as the task of all the women in the family. In this case, it is not easy to explain to them what is on offer and what is not, and who is allowed exemption for caring responsibility and who is not.

The point is also made that invalid care allowance is available only to one person, whereas the care of an invalid may rest upon several people. The other people may not receive any consideration for the care that they are giving. That point might be worth attention and it might even be possible to give it some attention.

It will not surprise the Minister that my chief complaint about these regulations—my chief complaint about this interview—is that it can be made a ground of a benefit sanction. The Minister is painfully familiar with my views on benefit sanctions. I keep asking her for evidence to refute them, as she clearly does not agree with them. She does not have any. On our latest round of Questions for Written Answer on the housing benefit sanctions, the Minister was able to offer me no information on what visible means of support were available to those suffering a benefit sanction. There is no information on whether more of them were admitted to hospital than other people and no information on whether more of them ended up in prison than any other people.

There seems to be a lamentable lack of curiosity. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to believe that the imposition of a benefit sanction is a penalty little less in gravity than the death penalty; that it is potentially life-threatening. I have read the judgment of Mr Justice Collins and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in the case of Q. Incidentally, when the asylum Bill was before the House, I gave warnings that the Government were risking precisely that judgment. Some of these people were reduced to a state of real life-threatening misery.

I would like to know, and I hope that the Minister would like to know, how many of the other people who are victims of benefit sanctions are reduced to any equivalent sense of misery. That seems to be material in assessing how far a benefit sanction is a justifiable penalty.

The Minister remarked—a little casually, I thought—that the regulations were ECHR compatible. I wonder how familiar she is with the developments in process about the interpretation of Article 3; that is, inhuman or degrading treatment. She may remember that it was one of the main grounds of Mr Justice Collins' judgment in the case of the asylum seekers. It seems at present to be the basis of Article 3 that to establish inhuman or degrading treatment one must establish destitution plus—destitution plus some other form of gross hardship or injury. Clearly, that is not a stable resting place; it is not a clear definition. It will go either forward or backwards.

I am in no position to prophesy which, but which it is may have a real relevance to the future of benefit sanctions. It could conclude with the whole lot of them being found contrary to Article 3. Therefore, the Minister might exercise a little more scholarly caution in the assertion that the regulations are ECHR compatible. Incidentally, if she reads the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, she will note that he did not say that they were ECHR compatible; he said that the point was open to doubt on both sides. That is not nearly as much of a clearance as the Home Secretary took it to be.

The Minister was not in the Chamber last Friday when my noble friend Lord Goodhart gave the Government a powerful but carefully drafted warning about our future conduct on regulations if the Government should continue to put through measures in them which cause us more discontent than many of the measures that we vote against in Bills. My noble friend chose his words very carefully indeed. I will not repeat them because I am in full agreement with them.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, if these regulations were welcomed. I thank noble Lords for their welcome. However, I suspect that the responses were slightly more ambivalent. I may be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, with some of the specific points that he raised. On his first point about partners, I agree that the wording is not the most felicitous. It states simply that it applies to partners if the claimant is receiving an additional increase in benefit by virtue of having a partner. It is a truism, but it is for the purpose of clarification. There may be truth in truisms occasionally.

On the definition of a partner, we go to the classic debates that we have had on many previous Bills. A partner is a member of the same couple as the claimant or, in the case where the claimant has more than one partner, a partner by reason of a polygamous marriage and so forth. A couple is defined by reference to the definitions of married couple and unmarried couple in Part 7 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. A married couple are a man and a woman who are married together and are members of the same household. Unmarried couple means a man and a woman who are not married to each other but who are living together as husband and wife. In the past we have discussed what that includes: they share a common financial budget, they share a household, there is a presumption that they have children together and so on. That is a partner.

The noble Lord then asked about several interviews. Someone can be in receipt of several benefits but only one work-focused interview is required, not one interview per benefit. For example, someone may have carer's allowance and that would be topped up by income support. They would not have an interview for both carer's allowance and income support: they would have just one interview. Many of the reasons for the priority order were explained in the primary legislation.

The first part of the noble Lord's comments were about the lack of clarity or the possible ambiguity—and I accept some of his criticisms—of the explanatory memorandum.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was quite right to explain the point about the 10 pence, being to hold a residual benefit in place to allow one to obtain passported benefits like housing benefit, or free prescriptions and so on. It is a decency insurance net. The noble Earl's second point was to suggest that, though this might be a good thing and was well-intended, all the evidence about what has happened to lone parents suggests that it is not a particularly effective way to proceed.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, before the Minister goes to the more substantive point, can she explain what the first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum means? I simply do not understand it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is referring to the explanatory memorandum at the back: These regulations impose a requirement on the partners of claimants of certain benefits", and they are listed in Regulation 11(4), in the order of priority, to take part in a work-focused interview Can interview') where the claimant is entitled to that benefit at a higher rate", because he has a partner. So "referable to" is because he has a partner. That is what it means at any rate, I can assure the noble Lord. I agree about the infelicity of the wording.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, it does not say what the Minister has just said. It says, where the claimant is entitled to that benefit at a higher rate referable to the partner". She has explained what that means. I cannot possibly put that construction on it. Officials who draft this kind of thing and put forward nonsensical paragraphs explaining things really ought to get a rocket.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will accept my explanation and allow me to get on to the substantive point. I have said I agree that some of the language is less than felicitous. I do not know how much more he expects me to say on that. I will go on to the substantive point as I am sure that your Lordships know we have other regulations that we need to explore in a moment.

I do not agree with the assessment of the efficacy of the process that we set in train when we introduced work-focused interviews for lone parents. Since they were introduced work-focused interviews have led to a 36 per cent increase in the number of lone parents joining the New Deal, which is voluntary. The New Deal, associated with and, in many cases triggered by, the work-focused interviews shows something like a doubling of the rate of lone parents, held constant for age, gender—not gender—and educational qualification, entering into work. Something like 371,000 lone parents have joined the New Deal and half have found jobs. Those lone parents who go through the New Deal appear to also enjoy higher wages and a wage premium of between 6 and 9 per cent, particularly if they are in full-time work. I cannot give precise evidence about sustainability, but it is certainly sometimes the case that lone parents come out of the labour market during the long summer holiday period if, for example, their childcare arrangements break down or the child's health becomes fragile. It is the case that where they have come through the New Deal, have qualifications in consequence and where we seem to see higher wages, there is a greater likelihood for them to be able to hold on to the job.

Sometimes a lone parent may take several occasions to come in to the labour market, just as other young people may do. It depends entirely on the social and educational capital—the work skills—that the lone parent brings into the labour market. I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and say that it is not the work-focused interview alone, it is what the work focused interview has led on to— joining the New Deal, going into work, acquiring education and training, very often getting, as a result, eligibility for tax credits, enjoying a significantly higher income and springboarding their children out of poverty. If a lone parent goes into work the risk of poverty for their children falls by 75 per cent. That is a striking statistic. These results are a package but all the evidence is that the first step, to bring, sometimes reluctant, people to an interview can open doors and open windows that would otherwise be closed, particularly in areas where there is a low history of work and a high level of social exclusion.

I now turn to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He says that it is not the business of the state to determine how people juggle work and childcare. I agree with that, but it is the case that if both partners, the claimant and the partner, are both unemployed and they have children it is not unreasonable to assume that between them they can manage the childcare without specifying the gender. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know that if a couple have children then between them they need only work 30 hours to get the full benefit of the tax credit system, which is very substantial indeed. One partner could work 16 hours, one could work 12 and thus manage the childcare even if they did not seek childcare payments through the tax credit system. It is sensitive and sensible in respect of childcare.

Secondly the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about carers. I was slightly concerned because I have not seen the material that he mentioned but I have been able to get some additional material for him that may be helpful. It was the case that earlier we carried out a written consultation exercise, contacting 34 organisations of which 11 responded. Concerns were raised but Carers UK responded to the consultation on these draft regulations and did not raise concerns regarding the interview being intimidating. It may be that we are crossing wires slightly. I stand to be corrected on this, but some of their concerns did not apply to these particular regulations but were involved in an earlier consultation exercise and I hope that as a result of that exercise we have been able to abate their worries.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, then made a point about Bangladeshi women. I take that point, which I thought was sensitive, but it remains the case that some 3 per cent of all children are the children of Bangladeshi/Pakistani parents and 8 per cent of all poor children are the children of Bangladeshi/ Pakistani parents. One of the major reasons for that is that 73 per cent of partnered white women are in work and only about 23 to 26 per cent of Bangladeshi/ Pakistani partnered women are in work.

If there is a single explanation for child poverty—it is almost a predictor of deprivation for children, which is so bad for them and for our society—it concerns their distance from the labour market. When looking at India or Africa, who does one seek to help into the labour market? To whom do you give education? One gives it to women. If the women come into work not only does the family have a second income, but that also brings education into the family and the language and aspirations of the children are lifted. I hope that the noble Earl would extrapolate that into the situation of some of our poorest ethnic minority families whose children, although bright and able, are simply not being mainstreamed as we would wish them to be.

The final point of the noble Earl concerned benefit sanctions—a benefit sanction of about £10. If a couple are on JSA with two children they would have an income of about £250 and we are talking of a sanction of about 4 to 5 per cent. The noble Earl asks what happens to their health. Most sanctions can be alleviated quite quickly if someone meets the terms or the requirements of the condition and goes for the interview or actively seeks work. We could not do what the noble Lord asks. He knows, as a distinguished professional in the field of research, that one cannot test for something unless one has a base line from which to start. Unless one has analysed the health and wellbeing of everyone who is a claimant and tried to work out the impact of two, or three, or four weeks' of benefit sanction that cannot be done.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the Minister knows that for many years we have been pressing the Government to conduct research on the level of minimum income necessary for good health. That would provide a base line. The Government seem to be extremely reluctant to supply it. In that circumstance, I wonder how the Minister can know what she has just told me.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, one of the reasons for not going down this path—this is not a debate that I would normally entertain—is that 50 per cent of lone parents smoke; they smoke because they are poor; they are poor because they smoke; and there is a heavy correlation between what they do as a result of that and their poor health and the poor health of their children, 75 per cent of whom suffer from respiratory illnesses.

What does the noble Earl suggest that we do about that? We do not normally shout about it or stigmatise people because of it. We try to raise levels of aspiration. We can introduce lone parents to nicotine help if that is what they seek and we hope that as a result their health and the health of their children will improve. If there is a sanction, how much of that is due to their smoking and how much of it is due to being denied a small element of their benefit? It is probably less than they spend on smoking each week. The average lone parent spends about £15 a week on cigarettes and the sanction is £10.

I do not know how we could conduct the research that the noble Earl suggests. I do not believe that it is technically possible. The noble Earl has an honourable record in challenging sanctions and he is absolutely right to press us on what we believe we are doing and on the implications. Without a sanction, all benefit conditions become voluntary. Why should anyone seek work—they could stay in bed, play the guitar, or whatever—if there is no sanction? They do not receive their JSA unless they are actively seeking work. Are we saying that all requirements associated with benefits should be voluntary?

Earl Russell

My Lords, I believe that the Minister knows perfectly well that I am not saying that. I have always said that I am prepared to have a sanction that is compatible with the continued good health of the claimant. I would like to know at what level that should be fixed, but that involves research that the Government have not yet carried out.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord had accepted my argument for a sanction representing 4 to 5 per cent of income, which is rather less than someone spends on cigarettes per week. How on earth can we determine what element of their poor health may be due to the sanctions and what element is due to their existing smoking? There is absolutely no way of telling. I am puzzled that the noble Earl does not accept my argument on this. Ultimately, I believe that these sanctions are modest.

We are asking partners of claimants to take seriously the obligation to attend a work-focused interview which I believe is an opportunity not a threat; it is about empowerment and choice. As I have seen with lone parents in the past, if we do not have a sanction, and people believe that it is voluntary, people will not attend. They prefer not to bother. That is one of the problems that we often face with lone parents and their children. Once they come in to do the work-focused interview and come into the New Deal their aspirations rise and their children benefit as well.

I suspect that the noble Earl and I will not agree on this. Over the years I have changed my mind on this in the light of information and research reports that I have read. I hope that when the noble Earl reads the same literature he will join me and change his mind too.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, it has been apparent that the noble Baroness has changed her mind on some issues that we have debated in the past. Did the sanctions apply during the period of the pilot? I am puzzled by the study that says that only 17 per cent of lone parents received an invitation for an interview and only 14 per cent actually attended an interview. Were the sanctions in action during that pilot scheme?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, in some cases sanctions were in action. But let me write to the noble Lord, because this order is about the New Deal for partners not the New Deal for lone parents. If he wants me to follow up the detail about what happened to some of those pilot schemes—how many people were sanctioned, how many of those were accepted as good cause, and what happened then—I will be very happy to write to him. I think that is the best way rather than trying to bounce the statistics around tonight.

With that, I hope your Lordships will accept the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.