House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Jun 1995

Column 579

amendments in another place, the Government decided to delay the introduction of the Bill. I think that it is relevant in our debate on the first group of amendments to seek an explanation of why the Bill has been delayed for six months--

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me. If he wishes to pursue that point, he must find another way to do so. He cannot pursue the matter on this group of amendments.

Mr. Bradley: Again I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the amendments change many things with which Benefits Agency staff will have to deal. The result is that the Bill's introduction has been delayed by six months. We need to know precisely why. We did not know about the chaos in which the Government now find themselves.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): My understanding is that the Labour party is opposed to the Bill. If that is the case, why are they objecting to a six-month delay in its introduction?

Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall explain the Labour party's exact position. He is right to say that any delay in this nasty piece of legislation is welcome, but we do not want legislation that we have tried to improve to fall into the same chaos as other recent Acts. The Child Support Act 1991 and the introduction of the disabled living allowance are examples of the chaos in benefit delivery that can result from inadequate consideration.

We obviously welcome any delay that will result in the Bill's smooth introduction, even though we do not approve of its provisions. We want to ensure that Employment Service staff are fully trained and understand the implications of the amendments that are before us today. It is crucial that the computer systems--which I understand are the root cause of the problem- -are running effectively.

The amendments are part of what the Government and the other place recognise as a package of carrot-and-stick measures for the unemployed. The carrots, as the Government describe them, are the national insurance holiday for employers, the run-on of housing benefit and council tax benefit, and the Government's perception of the jobseekers agreement. However, the stick part of the package has not been delayed for six months; only the carrot parts have been delayed.

I understand that the crucial cut in the contributory benefit from 12 to six months, the introduction of means-tested benefits at six months, and the reduction in benefit for people under 25 will go ahead in April 1996. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. We must know how the delay in introducing the benefit will be dealt with in practice to ensure that people who become unemployed either side of April 1996-- [Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): What does any of that have to do with the amendments under discussion?

Mr. Bradley: It is extraordinary that the Minister does not recognise that the key amendments made in another

Column 580

place, which affect the whole Bill, will also have consequences when the cuts in benefit are introduced in April 1996 and when the Bill's other provisions come into effect in October 1996. Opposition Members are trying to ensure that there is full public understanding of the way in which the Bill is to be introduced, including the amendments that are before us today. I think that that is very relevant business of the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether we are talking about benefit or the jobseeker's allowance, many people will apply for jobs as groundsmen at Lords now that we have beaten the West Indies for the first time since 1957?

Mr. Bradley: I do not wish to try your patience again, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I add the congratulations of Labour Members to the England cricket team on that victory. Perhaps Conservative Members can replicate the leadership lessons to be learned from the victory. As a Member of Parliament from the north-west, I am pleased that the England captain comes from the north-west of England. It is clear that the Lords amendments would add to the insecurity being experienced by people who are unemployed or who will become unemployed as a result of Government policy. We recently debated the fact that mortgage tax relief in the income support context is to be cut. That will have a dramatic effect on people's feelings of security about their homes. The unemployed will now have their contributory benefit cut to only six months and they will be forced to use their savings --whether they be redundancy pay-outs or life savings--when means-tested benefits are introduced after only six months.

This is another example of Government policy adding to insecurity and uncertainty. It is part of a Government package that includes Lords amendments that will do nothing to create real jobs, real training and real opportunities. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, want to know--as do we--why the Government have not had the courtesy to offer the House a proper explanation of why the Bill in its real form is being delayed until October 1996.

Mr. Roger Evans: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.

Lords amendment No. 1 and those grouped with it deal with a limited, narrow, technical point and improve the drafting to streamline the Bill's operation. The wider issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned might just about have some remote connection with them.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is right when he says that the Government are concerned to keep this major project under close scrutiny. In line with our announced intentions, we commissioned an external review to report on the project's progress. Significant progress has been made, but the review led us to conclude that an April 1996 implementation date would entail unacceptable risks to the streamlined and smooth delivery of an efficient service to the jobseeker. That is the legislation's purpose, and we did not want it put at risk.

The announcement of the deferral was made while the Bill was being debated in the other place. That was a perfectly proper time to explain our actions.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey): Does the Minister agree that, if the Government did not take their legislation so

Column 581

for granted, were humble enough to admit that, during the passage of legislation through both Houses, constructive and improving amendments from any part of the House might be made and did not tell civil servants to begin to implement legislation before it became law, we would not find ourselves in such a situation? Will the Minister admit that many Government amendments are made to Bills these days? Does not that indicate great change between the first and final shape of the Bill?

Mr. Evans: Clearly the hon. Lady does not understand how the Government operate. They are humble in that sense. We proceed in three stages, which are highly relevant to this issue. First, Parliament must pass the legislation. It amends the legislation. We are doing that here and now. When Parliament has passed legislation, and not before, the delegated legislation--in the form of statutory instruments--that is to be made under a Bill must be drafted, laid and approved by Parliament.

It might have struck the hon. Lady that, if one is designing complicated computer software to implement a project of this importance and complexity- -given that software is more unforgiving than the law--that work cannot be completed until the legislation and delegated legislation have been prepared, laid and approved. We have followed that procedure. One plans and anticipates as far as one can, but it is clear that the parliamentary programme has meant an impossible burden on the software writing. The external review confirmed that was the appropriate course to take.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of parliamentary procedure. He said that the regulations will be laid and approved before implementation. Will he confirm that there will be votes in the House on the regulations before the legislation takes effect?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman took my shorthand explanation of the procedure too literally. He is well aware, after our debates in Committee, that the Bill involves a complex series of procedures for dealing with the regulations made under it. I was referring to that in short form. Of course we will go through the necessary procedures in due time. I was making the substantive point that one cannot write computer software until Parliament has determined the law. That is how government ought to operate and does operate--and how the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) wants it to operate if I understood her earlier sedentary intervention.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 3

The income-based conditions

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (4).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Miss Widdecombe.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 41.

Column 582

4.30 pm

Mr. Bradley: I merely seek some guidance and clarification from the Minister. The amendments cover, among other things, prescription in regulation of the definition of training and other assistance. Following the Bill's passage through Committee and consideration in another place, there has been much discussion and debate on definition. Some organisations, especially colleges of further education, have some anxiety. They are worried about how training will be defined and how the reduction in supervised study from 21 to 16 hours will work in practice. That stems from anxiety about the amount of course skills that will be developed during the 16 hours of supervised study.

I seek assurances that there will be further debate and further consultation with all relevant parties as the regulations are framed to ensure that all the problems that have been identified with understanding and interpreting the forthcoming regulations are taken on board. It is important that the regulations reflect the anxieties that have been expressed. We all intend that those who seek further qualification and training, and education generally, are not limited by the benefit rules. We all want successful courses that lead to real qualifications and skills, which will lead to proper jobs. When will the regulations on definition be laid? What consultation will the Minister undertake with the various bodies that have already been in discussions with her and her Department? Is the hon. Lady able to give us an outline of how she sees these processes unwinding over the coming months?

Miss Widdecombe: We have decided that the move from 21 to 16 hours of part-time study will be introduced in October 1996. There will be an elongation of six months. That should assist further education colleges, about which some concern was expressed, to prepare for the changes that will be introduced. The elongation should also assist students who are considering courses.

It is on the advice of further education colleges that we have decided to take the course that I have described and to seek a firm definition, which is best done on the basis of guided learning hours. The extension of time will make it possible for the colleges to consider the full implications. If, during that time, they wish to raise issues with us, we shall be delighted to take into account anything that they have to say.

The substantive amendments are purely about how we define training. They are designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there were three separate powers to define training in the original Bill. Those powers have now been reduced to one composite power. That was done in response to concerns expressed by the Opposition and in another place. The amendments are purely drafting amendments.

As I think we have explained, the intention is that we should have some definition of training along the lines of "Training for young people"--so we are talking about our 16 and 17-year-olds in this context--"provided directly or indirectly by a TEC under its operating agreement with the Secretary of State". We have specified that definition during proceedings on the Bill both in this House and in another place.

The objective is to be able to take on board such things as modern apprenticeships and to carry forward existing arrangements and define them as training for the purposes

Column 583

of the definition. As we are trying to carry forward existing arrangements and as we have already explained and debated extensively in both places how we intend to define training, I do not believe that further consultation will benefit us. That is not to rule out any organisation putting its views to us if it wishes to do so, but there will certainly be no further formal processes of consultation.

Ms Eagle: I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about training definitions, especially as we had a fairly long debate in Committee about quality and some of the reasons for poor attendance. I wish to pick up those themes and seek some reassurance.

Will the Minister give me some idea of how the Department would react to a course I came across the other day? I am grateful to Mr. Gerry Williams of Birkenhead for pointing it out to me. It is called the jacuzzi course and is for people who are unemployed. It is run by Merseyside TEC. The leaflet says that, on Friday afternoon, "you will accept a personally engraved key to your future complete a personal Action Plan

receive a specifically designed certificate of attendance find the whole experience a piece of cake."

It goes on to say that participants will go to the four-star Liverpool Moat House hotel, where they will start every morning at a quarter to nine. It says:

"You must meet at 8.45 am on each day in the Jacuzzi. This is an essential part of the course so please bring your `cossie' each day. Each day you will be served a top quality lunch in the hotel restaurant and you may well meet celebrities staying in the hotel." As enjoyable as that sounds, is it reasonable to count that as training for the purposes of the Jobseekers Bill? Should we not try to do something that is slightly more relevant?

I would not define the jacuzzi course as training. I might define it as a nice, enjoyable thing. Perhaps the unemployed should be allowed access to the Moat House hotel, but it seems an odd use of public money. If one of my constituents was offered the jacuzzi course and said, "I would rather try to find a job or do some computer training and establish new skills," he might be told that he would lose his benefit unless he agreed to do the jacuzzi course. Perhaps the Minister could say something about the issue and tell us whether the definition of training will make the jacuzzi course compulsory.

Miss Widdecombe: I am worried that, now that the hon. Lady has read out the details of that course, there might be more applications for it than Merseyside TEC can possibly manage. I have no details of the course. That is regrettable, because it sounds fascinating. The hon. Lady read out selected quotations. I do not know the entire picture. Therefore, I am most unwilling to comment on a particular type of course. However, I am sufficiently fascinated to look into it further. I shall write a letter about jacuzzi courses to the hon. Lady when I have established the facts.

Lords amendment agreed to .

Clause 6

Availability for, and actively seeking, employment

Lords amendment: No. 6, to leave out clause 6 and insert the following new clauses-- Availability for employment --

Column 584

(".--(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any employed earner's employment.

(2) Subsection (1) is subject to such provisions as may be made by regulations; and those regulations may, in particular, provide that a person--

(a) may restrict his availability for employment in any week in such ways as may be prescribed; or

(b) may restrict his availability for employment in any week in such circumstances as may be prescribed (for example, on grounds of conscience, religious conviction or physical or mental condition or because he is caring for another person) and in such ways as may be prescribed.

(3) The following are examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations--

(a) restrictions on the nature of the employment for which a person is available;

(b) restrictions on the periods for which he is available; (c) restrictions on the terms or conditions of employment for which he is available;

(d) restrictions on the locality or localities within which he is available.

(4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is or is not to be treated as available for employment.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is available for employment--

(a) only in his usual occupation,

(b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, or

to be treated, for a permitted period, as available for employment.

(6) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as available for employment in any week, the question whether he is available for employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.

(7) In this section "permitted period", in relation to any person, means such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (4).

(8) Regulations under subsection (4) may prescribe, in relation to permitted periods--

(a) the day on which any such period is to be regarded as having begun in any case;

(b) the shortest and longest periods which may be determined in any case;

(9) For the purposes of this section "employed earner's employment" has the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.

Actively seeking employment--

.--(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is actively seeking employment in any week if he takes in that week such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.

(2) Regulations may make provision--

(a) with respect to steps which it is reasonable, for the purposes of subsection (1), for a person to be expected to have to take in any week;

(b) as to circumstances (for example, his skills, qualifications, abilities and physical or mental limitations) which, in particular, are to be taken into account in determining whether, in relation to any steps taken by a person, the requirements of subsection (1) are satisfied in any week.

(3) Regulations may make provision for acts of a person which would otherwise be relevant for purposes of this section to be disregarded in such circumstances (including circumstances constituted by, or connected with, his behaviour or appearance) as may be prescribed.

Column 585

(4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as actively seeking employment.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is actively seeking employment--

(a) only in his usual occupation,

(b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, or

to be treated, for the permitted period determined in his case for the purposes of section 6(5), as actively seeking employment during that period.

(6) Regulations may provide for this section, and any regulations made under it, to have effect in relation to a person who has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18 as if "employment" included "training".

(7) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as actively seeking employment in any week, the question whether he is actively seeking employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.

(8) For the purposes of this section--

"employment" means employed earner's employment or, in prescribed circumstances--

(a) self-employed earner's employment; or

(b) employed earner's employment and self-employed earner's employment; and

"employed earner's employment" and "self-employed earner's employment" have the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.

Attendance, information and evidence--

.--(1) Regulations may make provision for requiring a claimant-- (a) to attend at such place and at such time as the Secretary of State may specify; and

(b) to provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to his circumstances, his availability for employment and the extent to which he is actively seeking employment.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular-- (a) prescribe circumstances in which entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is to cease in the case of a claimant who fails to comply with any regulations made under that subsection;

(b) provide for entitlement to cease at such time (after he last attended in compliance with requirements of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a)) as may be determined in accordance with any such regulations;

(c) provide for entitlement not to cease if the claimant shows, within a prescribed period of his failure to comply, that he had good cause for that failure; and

(d) prescribe--

(i) matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account in determining whether a person has, or does not have, good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations; and

(ii) circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as having, or not having good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield): I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in first proposed new clause, in subsection (2)(a), after `prescribed;', insert--

Column 586

`(aa) may restrict his availability for employment in any week by refusing employment which may reasonably be expected to impair his future career prospects;'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 6, in first proposed new clause, after subsection (2)(c) insert--

`(cc) restrictions on the rate of remuneration of employment for which he is available;'.

Lords amendments Nos. 8, 24, 29, 33, No. 36 and amendment (a) thereto, No. 39 and amendment (b) thereto, and No. 53.

Next Section

Home Page