Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I start by expressing a degree of envy at the ability of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to commandeer a ministerial car in the past. In these straitened times I am reduced to a bicycle. However, in case noble Lords are anxious, I can confirm that the Ortleib pannier manages to contain a ministerial Box—and I have two panniers. Turning to the amendments, as noble Lords know, we recently announced that jobseekers will be expected to look for suitable work within a 90-minute commute from their home. This is the default position in jobseeker’s allowance at the moment. The intention is to ensure that claimants search in a sufficiently wide geographic area while keeping the requirements reasonable. The old position was that JSA claimants could restrict travel time to 60 minutes, but only for the first 13 weeks and only if they had a reasonable prospect of work. Otherwise, the 90 minutes of travel time did apply. Therefore, this is not a huge change, although I understand the challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has given me when she said that the existing system could operate a little better. I accept that challenge. Our briefing note on the work search and availability requirements for universal credit explained that this would continue to be the normal position for claimants. However, we also explained that limitations will be applied to the work that a claimant has to look for to take into account any relevant circumstances, particularly childcare. For example, we are clear that a claimant who is the lead carer for a child under 13 need only look for work that will fit around school hours. This would include any necessary travel time. A claimant with young children may be asked to take a job 90 minutes away, but only if the job had working hours that allowed the claimant to get the children to and from school and still get to work on time. Similarly, if a commute of any time up to 90 minutes is too far given caring responsibilities or health issues—for instance, the need to stay close to a child with ill health—we would be able to take that into account. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the widening of the job goal, that is not intended to refer to a geographic or time widening, but refers to the type of work and remuneration. The travel time remains at 90 minutes. On the cost of travel, like other costs of employment, we recognise that to be an important consideration for some claimants. The extent to which the costs are a problem and could reasonably prevent a claimant from taking up work will vary from case to case. A key question with costs is whether they are affordable. Where claimants have concerns, we would obviously want to discuss those with them and help to identify ways to access additional financial support—for example, to cover any one-off costs. As noble Lords know, Jobcentre Plus has a flexible budget for exactly that kind of thing. With any costs, the question of whether they are reasonable depends on the job itself—how much it pays, whether it is a permanent or temporary position and the opportunities for progression. The circumstances of the claimant are of course important. For some claimants, the wider benefits of moving into work, including the positive impact on the claimant’s health or any children in their household may mean that taking employment is the right thing to do even where the costs outweigh the benefits on a strict financial assessment—at least initially. We all know that many youngsters move into work to build up their experience and that their payment rates are a secondary consideration. I am not in a position to give the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, a blanket assurance. To be honest, this is a slightly overambitious request given that we are moving from a position where the chaos of the benefits system meant that in many cases work was simply not worth doing to a structure where, in principle, it will be. We are looking at oddities. To look for blanket protection in a system that is basically much better structured is asking for a bit too much. Given the variety of factors that need to be taken into account in assessing whether the costs of employment are reasonable, we think it more appropriate to consider these on a case-by-case and job by job basis. Where a job is identified within 90 minutes of a claimant’s home but the costs are a concern to the claimant, they will be able to discuss that with an adviser, but they must push ahead with an application or accept the job offer. Our aim is to put in place a system that allows a balanced view to be reached, weighing the costs of moving into work against all the benefits of work for the claimant. This is broadly the process in jobseeker’s allowance now. JSA regulations require advisors to consider whether the costs of travel are disproportionate when assessing whether a claimant has good reason for refusing a job offer. We are considering carefully the regulatory framework that we want to put around that under universal credit, but we recognise that it is an important issue and we hope to provide further information shortly. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.