Welfare Reform Bill

In moving Amendment 12, I shall speak also to Amendments 38, 76 and 87, all of which provide a definition of the concept of "good cause" in the Bill. These are probing amendments and we would do well to work on the detail of the definition of good cause between now and Report stage. The main purpose of the amendments is to argue the principle that this definition should be on the face of the Bill. If a claimant fails to participate in a scheme or activity directed under the "work for your benefits" scheme under the new income support rules or in relation to the conditionality conditions for employment and support allowance, he may be subject to benefit sanctions. The amendments apply the same definition of good cause in each of the benefit systems covered by the Welfare Reform Bill. The definition is taken from the definition of good cause used in the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, Statutory Instrument No 207, and I am aware that the matters listed in our amendment differ from those listed in the draft regulations sent to us by the Minister on 4 June. I shall return to the point in a moment. The importance of the amendments lies in the fact that one of the fundamental safeguards in the Bill against people being punished for things outside their control is the defence of good cause. This safeguard is crucial in upholding Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ensuring that the balance between rights and responsibilities in the welfare system is fair and effective. In fact, it is not just because of Articles 3 and 8 that I am arguing this case, but it happens that it is a key point which needs to be made. Despite the importance of the concept of safeguarding claimants, the Welfare Reform Bill itself does not contain a definition of good cause; instead it will come in regulations. We believe that it is essential that Parliament has a full opportunity to consider permissible grounds for a person’s failure to attend the relevant schemes or activity. This ensures a fair balance in the legislation between the coercive powers and the appropriate safeguards. This view was given by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 14th report, Legislative Scrutiny: Welfare Reform Bill, which I shall quote for the record: ""While the detailed delegated powers memorandum provided by the Government aids scrutiny of the proposals of the Bill, it is difficult to scrutinise proposed safeguards for their impact on individual human rights on this basis. We reiterate our previous recommendation that where safeguards are relevant to the Government’s view on human rights compatibility, those safeguards should be provided on the face of the Bill"." The committee goes on say that where the Government’s view on compatibility relies on safeguards to be provided in secondary legislation, ""we recommend that draft regulations are published together with the Bill"." We are to have draft regulations during the course of the Bill. The committee goes on: ""At the very least, the Government should describe in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill the safeguards it proposes to provide"." I must acknowledge that the Government have met the lower-level recommendation of the Joint Committee, but I am sure that I am not the only Member of the Committee who does not find that acceptable. To have subsection (a) in the Bill is particularly important for people with mental health and other fluctuating conditions. I tend to raise the issue of these people, but they are incredibly vulnerable in the face of the benefits system and all these conditionality clauses. As we have debated on many occasions, some people experience periods of varying length of being well interspersed with episodes of illness. For others, a medication regime or other forms of treatment may produce temporary difficulties. Others may have particular anxieties associated with their illness which affect their ability to perform particular tasks. It does not help that they may be able to do all sorts of other things because if they cannot do what is required of them, they will have problems. I am grateful to the Minister for sending us a copy of the draft regulations entitled the Employment and Support Allowance (Work-Related Activity, Action Plans and Directions) (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2010. These regulations provide an alternative wording to that in our amendment. Can the Minister inform us whether these regulations were also available to Members of the other place when the Bill was debated there? If not, then the Government have not satisfied even the backstop demand of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My general concern about the regulations that the Minister sent is that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take account of the matters listed under paragraph (5) of the regulations. The regulations are very clear that the Secretary of State may take those matters into account. Presumably that also means that he may decide not to take them into account. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that point. From my point of view, the principle of having them on the face of the Bill is the main thrust of these amendments. I also want to pick up two matters listed in the new government regulations. The first concerns transport difficulties. That issue was raised in response to an amendment in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in an earlier debate on rural areas and the time involved in travelling to and from work-related activities. Our amendment makes explicit what time would be reasonable. It makes it clear that travel taking more than one hour in either direction would not be reasonable and should be accepted as good cause if the claimant turned down an activity on those grounds. Does the Minister agree? If he does, perhaps he will ensure that, whatever regulations are devised in the future, that point is made clear. The second point concerns childcare. In view of our detailed debate on those issues on our first day in Committee, I will not be moving Amendment 57. However, we will return to childcare in relation to Amendment 75, as it raises different issues from those discussed on Tuesday. In this context, I draw noble Lords’ attention to Regulation 11(5)(m) of the draft regulations. In my view, the wording of the sub-paragraph is very general. It says only that childcare must be "reasonably available"—or does it mean that reasonable childcare must be available? What does "childcare must be reasonably available" mean? It is not very helpful. The sub-paragraph also says that childcare must not be, ""unsuitable due to the particular needs of the claimant or the child"." It says nothing about the quality of the childcare available or the training of the staff. I would be grateful if the Minister could give further thought to that in the light of the discussion on our first day in Committee. I was thinking of ending with a particular example but I have probably said enough. I know that the Minister is well aware of the issues behind these amendments and I know he is sympathetic to the particular difficulties of claimants with mental health problems and other fluctuating disorders. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the new Secretary of State at the DWP on her appointment and make the point that she, too, is very sensitive to claimants with fluctuating disorders. That gives me hope that we have achieved some progress. On behalf of those with fluctuating disorders but also on behalf of all claimants, I hope that the Minister will agree to the principle that the definition of "good cause" should be included in the Bill and that the detail of the regulations needs to be revisited before Report in order to find a better wording. I beg to move.