Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady must recognise that we are in a very different economic climate from the one in 2008, when we saw a debt-fuelled boom that undermined the strength of the British economy. The economy is going through a healing process at the moment, and since May 2010 we have actually seen the private sector creating an extra 1 million new jobs. She should welcome that, because it has given people across the country an opportunity to get into work. We have seen the effectiveness of our welfare reforms—230,000 fewer people are claiming out-of-work benefits than they were in May 2010—and they have contributed to an increase in the numbers of people in work. People are coming into the labour market and finding jobs, and I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

Before I go into the detail of the Bill and the background to the Court of Appeal judgment, let me outline why the Government believe that, in certain circumstances, jobseeker’s allowance claimants should be mandated to take part in employment programmes. and that when they fail to participate without good reason, they should face a benefit sanction.

First, this is a policy that is supported not only by Members from all parts of the House, but by the vast majority of the British public. According to the British social attitudes survey, 85% of the public believe that someone who is unemployed and on benefits should be required to do some unpaid work in the community while keeping their benefits. Sir Stanley Burnton, one of the Appeal Court judges in the Wilson and Reilly judgment, said:

“Parliament is entitled to authorise the creation and administration of schemes that are designed to assist the unemployed to obtain employment...it is not easy to see what objection there could be to them. Parliament is equally entitled to encourage participation in such schemes by imposing sanctions, in terms of loss of jobseekers’ allowance, on those who without good cause refuse to participate in a suitable scheme.”

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Is not the issue the fact that sanctions can work if people know the consequences of failure to action? Did not the court rule that the information that was sent to people who were sanctioned did not comply with the regulations passed by this House?

[Mr Hoban]

A clear message was sent that people who failed to participate in schemes could lose their benefit for up to 26 weeks. That is the maximum they could lose. What the Court of Appeal said, and what the High Court said previously, was that we should make reference to the fact that if someone had committed a first offence, as it were, we should give details of the amount of benefit they would lose the first time they did not participate in a scheme. In fact, we have changed the notices as a consequence of the High Court judgment. The notice that we sent out said that people would face a loss of up to 26 weeks benefit if they did not take part in the scheme. What the High Court wanted was details of the lower levels of sanctions that could apply in that situation.

There is a broad consensus that mandatory back-to-work schemes are a necessary part of the approach that we take to get people back to work. When a person signs on to receive jobseeker’s allowance, they accept that they have certain responsibilities. It could be called a contract between the jobseeker and the taxpayer. We will offer a huge amount of support to jobseekers, including help to search for jobs, work experience and jobseeker’s allowance. That is our part of the deal. The jobseekers’ part of the contract is to take up the help that we offer. While the vast majority of jobseekers live up to their part of the contract, there are a small minority who are reluctant to do everything they can reasonably be expected to do to get back into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I have given way already to the hon. Lady. I want to make some progress.

As I have made clear, the Department fundamentally disagrees with the Appeal Court’s verdict, which is why it has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of both grounds. We believe it is right that the regulations should allow for flexibility, so that we can respond rapidly to improve jobseekers' chances of finding work, such as trialling new approaches in Derbyshire and London to help young people get vital experience to bolster their CV. A more prescriptive approach—the one proposed by the Appeal Court—to the content of the regulations would create inflexibilities that would ultimately hinder the jobseeker's chance of finding work.

Those are the arguments that we will make before the Supreme Court, if we are granted permission. Those arguments will not be affected by the Bill. We are hopeful that we will obtain permission and that we will win our appeal. There is, however, no guarantee that we will be granted permission to appeal, or that we would win the appeal. Were that to happen, claimants who have been subject to a sanction for failing to take part in the schemes would be entitled to a refund of that sanction. It would also mean that we had no power to impose sanctions in relation to failures under the ESE regulations, in cases where no sanction decision has yet been taken—the so-called stockpiled cases. If that were to happen, the cost to the taxpayer would be up to £130 million.

It is vital that, in the present economic climate, the public purse be protected from such claims. The Bill will ensure that the taxpayer does not have to repay benefits lost by claimants who have failed to participate in employment programmes, and can properly impose sanctions for such failures. It would be unacceptable for claimants who have failed to take all reasonable steps to increase their chances of finding work to receive an undeserved windfall payment. The Bill will prevent that by providing that any decision to reduce jobseeker's allowance under the ESE regulations cannot be challenged on the grounds that the ESE regulations were invalid or the notices given under them inadequate. It makes similar provision in relation to the mandatory work activity regulations in respect of notices given under those regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Over recent months, I have asked the Minister of State a number of questions about the sanctions regime. It has proved hard for him to answer questions such as how many people for whom English is a second language have been sanctioned and how many disabled people have been sanctioned. In my view, he does not have the evidence to state in the impact assessment that protected groups will not be disproportionately affected by the Bill. They may or may not be affected, because my efforts to find that information have failed, but I believe they are. When I see constituents who have been sanctioned, they are disproportionately people who are easily confused or who do not have good English.

However, that is not the reason why I shall go into the No Lobby on Second Reading. I oppose the Bill because I do not believe that Parliament should give the Government an alibi for confiscating from more than 200,000 people sums of between £340 and £810. They have illegally kept those sums from them. Let us be clear. That is what we are being asked to do by this retrospective legislation.

The Government have broken the law in a way that impacts on individual citizens. They have disrespected the rights of individual citizens and they are now asking Parliament to say, “Carry on doing it.” I do not believe that Parliament should do that. It is a fundamental issue of civil liberties, human rights and good governance. For that reason, not because of the content, I shall not abstain: I will oppose the legislation.

Ministers say, “Oh, people knew,” but let us be completely clear about what the regulations the Government have been found in breach of say. Regulation 4 says that the notice that people who are sanctioned receive “must specify” that C—the claimant—

“is required to participate in the Scheme…the day on which …participation will start…details of what C is required to do by way of participation in the Scheme…that the requirement to participate in the Scheme will continue until C is given notice by the Secretary of State that C’s participation is no longer required, or C’s award of jobseeker’s allowance terminates, whichever is earlier”

and finally,

“information about the consequences of failing to participate in the Scheme.”

In my view, the Minister has utterly disingenuously—I hope that is not unparliamentary, but I think so—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think it is, and I am going to rule that it is, so I am sure the hon. Lady will not want to use that word.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I withdraw that word, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Minister suggested that claimants knew the consequences. I refer him to the statements of judges on the matter. Judge Foskett said that

“the words…in the letter received by Mr Wilson were that his benefits ‘may be stopped’, perhaps conveying the impression that sanctions are not necessarily automatic.”

He goes on to say that

“the information given concerning sanctions is unclear and opaque.”

I accept that, since then, the Minister has improved the letters. I think that is right, and I do not oppose the possibility of sanctions; I believe that sanctions can work if people know that they are at risk of being sanctioned.

[Mr Hoban]

May I point out that, actually, sanctions are not automatic? Sanctions may be applied, because actually we disregard sanctions—sanctions do not apply—if there is good cause not to apply them. So “may” sounds right to me. The problem that the courts had was not specifying the graduated approach to sanctions.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

As I said, the judge said that

“the information given concerning sanctions is unclear and opaque.”

If the Government want sanctions to work, people need to know the consequences of their actions, and this is a debate about the consequences of actions—the consequences of the Government’s actions in failing to ensure that they complied with regulation 4 of the regulations in every communication with claimants. It seems to me that the Government should bear the consequences, and the consequence in this case is up to £130 million. When the Government do wrong—and let us be clear, the Government have been found to do wrong in this case—it is not just to be overlooked. This is a series of court judgments which say, in respect of individual citizens, that they have been wrongly treated—the Government must give those citizens back their money. It is not the Government’s money; it is their money. The Government have wrongly kept it from them, and it is quite clear that that is what the courts have decided.

If the Government are going to say that a sanctions regime is necessary so that people know the consequences of their actions—an argument that I would support—it seems right to me that the Government themselves should bear the consequences of their wrong actions, and they should not be coming to Parliament to ask us to give them a free pass for breaking the law, because that is what the Bill is doing.