Welfare Reform Bill

I acknowledge that this is a probing amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity of developing the issues around sanctions and hardship. However, the amendments as they stand would dilute the powers that we have to sanction individual claimants in "work for your benefit", and to provide hardship payments for them if we do so. By applying a maximum of a 13-week sanction we would be applying a potentially weaker sanction to "work for your benefit" than we would to the Flexible New Deal. This would significantly undermine the programme. Part of the rationale for the new jobseekers regime, of which the Flexible New Deal and "work for your benefit" are part, is that conditionality increases over time, as does the support underpinning that conditionality. This is absolutely the right approach. Mandatory programmes are far more effective in engaging claimants than voluntary ones, and engagement becomes even more vital as claimants remain on benefit for long periods. Sanctions are an essential part of any mandatory system. A mandatory programme without a sanction to back it up is not a mandatory scheme at all. Sanctions should be seen in this light, as an aid to engaging those who need support most, not punishing them. Of course there is a very easy way to avoid being sanctioned in the first place, which is to engage with the programme. That brings us to the nature of the sanction. We intend in "work for your benefit" to replicate existing sanctions provision for employment programmes, including Flexible New Deal. There is no reason why this should not be the case. In fact, by watering down the sanction for "work for your benefit" through this sanction we would be sending the message that somehow it was is less important than earlier stages of the support programme, which is far from the case. I know that there have been concerns that a 26-week sanction is too long and that the fixed nature of the sanction means that there is no incentive for a claimant to re-engage with the support on offer. This is a genuine concern that in some respects we share, and we will look at ways that we can lift a 26-week sanction part-way through if the claimant re-engages with the "work for your benefit" programme. However, we cannot and should not shy away from the principle that claimants have a responsibility to take steps to get back to work, and that as the length of the claim progresses they should be doing more to achieve that aim. It may also be helpful for me to confirm that all provisions relating to good cause and to appeals will still apply in "work for your benefit" in the same way that they do now, as we have just discussed. This is also the case with hardship provision, which we will carry forward into the new programme. The rationale for hardship payments is to ensure that where a vulnerable jobseeker is sanctioned, they, and in some cases their dependants, are not made destitute. Hardship payments provide protection for claimants with children who rely on benefit income to support them. It would, after all, be wrong to penalise children for the failures of their parents. Hardship payments are paid at various rates depending on circumstances, typically around 60 per cent of the normal personal allowance rate. The only way for a claimant to get the full benefit rate is to avoid a benefit sanction in the first place and to take up the support on offer. That is the right thing to do. We would not accept a system where parents or those with mental health conditions were not subject to any form of sanction; that is the essence of a passive welfare state that every major economy has now rejected. These amendments would create real doubt about our ability to run a hardship system. I hope that this gives the reassurance the noble Lord is looking for. I shall deal specifically with the amounts that will be involved. The hardship payment is paid not at the full rate of income-based JSA but at a reduced rate of the applicant’s personal allowance, which is currently £64.30 for an individual aged over 25. The reduction is either by 20 per cent or 40 per cent, depending on certain characteristics. Where the claimant, a member of the family or a member of a joint-claim couple is pregnant or seriously ill, the reduction is 20 per cent, and a 40 per cent reduction is applied if the claimant belongs to a vulnerable group. For a weekly JSA personal allowance for someone aged 25 or over, the hardship payment at the 80 per cent rate would amount to £48.40. Income-based JSA would be paid at the same rate. If it were a payment rate of 60 per cent, it would be £36.30 per week. For lone parents aged 18 or over, a similar 80 per cent rate would be £48.40 and £36.30 for the 60 per cent rate. My understanding is that only the basic rate applies and would not impact on entitlement to, for example, council tax benefit and housing benefit. I hope that that is the information the noble Lord is seeking.