Welfare Reform Bill

I shall do my best to straighten the noble Lord out. This amendment would, in practice, cast doubt on the Secretary of State’s power to prescribe circumstances in which a customer automatically has, or does not have, good cause for failing in their responsibility to take part in the "work for your benefit" scheme. I know that this is a probing amendment. In the area of sanctions, where a claimant could lose their benefit, it is essential that we ensure there is consistency in decision making. To do otherwise would risk unfairness and inequality. Therefore, the ability to make these regulations is essential. However, it may be helpful if I take this opportunity to set out in a little detail the principle of good cause and how we propose it will operate with regard to "work for your benefit". Benefit sanctions are designed to provide incentives for jobseekers to engage with the back-to-work support we offer, although there are some perfectly good reasons why claimants may not be able to meet certain requirements at particular times. In these circumstances, customers are deemed to have good cause for not complying with regulations. This is a safeguard built into the system to avoid customers being unfairly sanctioned. In "work for your benefit", we plan to adopt the same approach to good cause as existing employment programmes. This ensures that flexibility within the system to deal with individual circumstances exists. Using secondary legislation to prescribe certain circumstances will give us the right level of consistency, but also flexibility to ensure each customer’s case is considered on its merits. In "work for your benefit", as with other employment programmes, Jobcentre Plus decision-makers will always assess all available evidence when making good-cause decisions. I trust that that gives the detail the noble Lord seeks on why we need that provision. The noble Lord was particularly probing the difference between paragraphs (e) and (f). Paragraph (e) refers to, ""prescribing matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account"," and paragraph (f) refers to "prescribing circumstances". The difference is that "matters" relates to the extraneous events that affect the ability to take part. We see "circumstances" as being more personal to the claimant—for example, their health. This distinction is found elsewhere in social security legislation. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord on why we need each of those provisions.