---

Social Security (Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2006

My Lords, these regulations, although slightly strange, will be welcomed by those people currently on jobseeker’s allowance or income support who are involved in court proceedings, in police custody or in caring for children or older people. I shall take those three themes in order. Allowing those involved in court or tribunal proceedings up to eight weeks to be treated as available for and actively seeking work, as the Minister said, thereby remaining eligible for benefit during this time rather than having to make a new application when the court proceedings are over, is welcome. What is magic about eight weeks? Although I understand that most tribunals and trials will be over within eight weeks, there are those, perhaps fraud trials, which take considerably longer. Why should jurors in such circumstances be disadvantaged? I cannot imagine that many people would be in police custody for more than the 96 hours that the Minister has just been talking about. But we know, and have heard recently, of terrorist cases where—I stand to be corrected—that 96 hours can be waived. I wonder whether the department has the correct time for this. Surely, in both those cases, it is not beyond the wit of the Minister’s officials to devise a scheme in which long periods of activity, either in a court setting, including of course tribunals, or in police custody, would obviate the need to reregister for jobseeker’s allowance or income support. A few moments ago I described these regulations as slightly strange. I was originally told by the Government Whips’ Office that they would not need to be debated until after the Whitsun Recess. Late last week I was told that the department had changed its mind and that these regulations needed to be on the statute book by the end of next week. What has caused the alteration in the department’s thinking? I am not usually a conspiracy theorist, but could it be the fact that the Secretary of State has today made a speech about women’s social security benefits, and wants to include the fact that the third thing these regulations do is extend the time allowed for jobseekers with caring responsibilities to take up an offer of work from 48 hours to one week? This is obviously sensible, as it usually takes longer than 48 hours to arrange for someone else to take over the caring responsibilities. A week, if you are in this position, strikes me as being much more reasonable. I shall pass over the fact that we are due to have a Statement some time next week on the way in which the Government are to implement the proposals in the Turner report. I note merely that if it does not mention the future position of women, an awful lot of people, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—I am sorry she is not in her place—are going to be seriously annoyed. I also note that it has been leaked that the Secretary of State has made a speech today in which he announced plans to give women over 45 a full state pension—a change that will be seen as a reward for bringing up children and acting as a carer. If the report I read in today’s newspaper is true, I ask again: what is the hurry, when, in less than a week, the Secretary of State will make a Statement to Parliament, where such announcements should properly be made? There is no question but that we need more flexibility for those with caring responsibilities. An important feature of today’s regulation is the greater flexibility it provides for those with caring responsibilities to take up offers of employment. Women in particular have suffered from a benefits system that has not been sufficiently responsive to their requirements. For example, the current state pension and national insurance systems are not sufficiently flexible for the 2.2 million women who are not accruing a basic state pension, either because they do not work or because they do not earn enough to make contributions. Those are the department’s own figures. The latest figures from the Government Actuary’s Department for 2005 show that less than a third of women reaching state pension age are entitled to a full basic state pension. Meanwhile, childcare costs have risen by 27 per cent over the past five years. Official figures show that, for every five new childcare places created, three close, and there has been a consistent fall in the net growth of places since 2003. Given the difficulties in finding affordable childcare, greater flexibility for carers in taking up offers of employment will be welcome, as it gives them more time to find suitable arrangements. Earlier this week, we were talking about simplifying the benefit system, which has grown like Topsy over the years. Although, as I have said, these regulations are beneficial to a few people on benefits, they do nothing to ease the situation in this regard. Did the department’s new simplification unit, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned, advise on them? If so, what was its reaction? Despite all these questions, we on these Benches believe that this is a sensible holding exercise that will serve the purpose very well, and, until we see a report of the simplification unit, we support them.