Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that the meaning of the phrase "for the purposes of" in the legislation means that where it is used—and it obviously is used in a particular context in the legislation—that is where the definition applies. I am clear in my mind in that respect.

The noble Earl asked me to look carefully at the exact relationship between "training" in Amendment No. 105 and the second part of that definition. I hope that the noble Earl will allow me to look further at the amendment while I stand at the Dispatch Box so that I may give him a satisfactory reply. I now see that training is defined there only if it is appropriately provided for within the regulations. That would include assistance, and so on,

The first element of that means that training will have a wider meaning than something which is included. It must follow—must it not?—that the greater includes the less. Therefore, as I said earlier, it seems to me that training cannot have a meaning wider than that which the word could normally have. I return to what I said at the outset. We are talking about the definition of training in this particular piece of legislation; and, indeed, in the particular places where it falls in the legislation. There is no logical reason why the definition of the word "training" need be the same in each individual clause of the Bill.

Therefore, it must be within the scope of the Bill; it must fall within its ordinary meaning; and it can have the characteristics given in the definition. If one looks at the way in which the definition is drawn—or, for that matter, how a definition might be drawn in any other way—I do not see how it could actually contain the danger of oppression of the kind described by the noble Earl. I say that because the word "training" has a meaning. I do not believe that one can read into the meaning of the word "training" in that context the wider meanings of the type about which the noble Earl is concerned.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 106 and 106A not moved.]

Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 107:

Page 30, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Subject to any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection, "earnings" is to be construed for the purposes of this Act in accordance with section 3 of the Benefits Act and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 [Parliamentary control]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 108:

Page 31, line 27, after ("section") insert ("6, 7,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 and 114. The amendments fulfil the commitment I made in my

16 May 1995 : Column 550

response to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when we discussed the issue of parliamentary control of regulations on availability for employment and actively seeking employment during the recommitment stage last Thursday. The amendments have the effect of ensuring that whenever regulations are made under Clauses 6 or 7 they must be approved by affirmative resolution of each House.

I said in our earlier debate that I accepted that there is real concern in both Houses that regulations that affect the meaning and treatment of the two terms, "availability" and "actively seeking", should receive the full and proper scrutiny of Parliament. I made it clear that we took the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee very seriously when it asked the House to consider whether the affirmative procedure should apply to these terms. These amendments, I believe, address these concerns in full.

Amendment No. 114 tidies up one small measure in the Bill, and is consequential on the changes we introduced at the recommitment of Clause 6. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 6 was split into three parts. Clause 7 now deals exclusively with actively seeking employment. This amendment is consequential on the fact that Clause 6(6), as it was, has now been split into Clause 6(6) and Clause 7(7). This amendment extends the provision to cover Clause 7(7). It restores the original intention in that regard. But I believe the main amendments, which I am sure your Lordships will welcome, are Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, which make Clauses 6 and 7 subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for detaining the House just long enough to thank the Minister warmly for those amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 108A and 108B not moved.]

12 midnight.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 109:

Page 31, line 33, after ("section") insert ("6, 7,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 110:

Page 38, line 41, at end insert:

("The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)

. In section 31(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (definition of "whole estate of the debtor"), for "section 89(2)" substitute "sections 71(10B), 78(3B) and 89(2)".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the need for Amendment No. 110 arises from the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 31. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 31 concerns the treatment of jobseeker's allowance in insolvency cases and provides that where an amount is deducted from JSA for the recovery of overpayments or social fund awards, that amount shall not be treated as income for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 and

16 May 1995 : Column 551

the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. This consequential amendment simply provides for the Scottish bankruptcy Act to be amended accordingly. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:

Page 43, line 33, leave out from ("not") to ("and") and insert ("entitled to a jobseeker's allowance").
Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("not") to end of line 36 and insert ("entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 44, line 5, at end insert ("and where a disability premium is not in payment, he shall fall to be assessed under section 129(1) (b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move the final amendment for discussion this evening and I shall endeavour to do so as quickly as I can. The purpose of the amendment is to enable people on jobseeker's allowance to claim disability working allowance where they pass the "disadvantage" test, even where a disability premium is not in payment. When the disability working allowance was introduced, the Government expected a caseload of 50,000 people. Yet by the end of last year only 7,247 people were receiving it. That is recorded in Hansard for the other place on 28th November this year at col. 524. That cannot be right; I mean last year. We are a forward looking House but not quite as far forward looking as that. I can find the reference for the Minister, if he requires it.

Its take-up is the poorest of any benefit. Research undertaken by the independent Policy Studies Institute found that less than one-sixth of those eligible were claiming it. Unless the caseload increases more dramatically, the Policy Studies Institute estimates that it will be another 25 years before the target of 850,000 recipients is reached. But the changes to incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance are likely to reduce this possibility still further. With more people coming off incapacity benefit to sign on for jobseeker's allowance, the pool of people eligible for disability working allowance will fall as a result of the qualifying conditions for disability working allowance.

In order to qualify for DWA, unless in receipt of disability living allowance or similar benefits, someone must have been receiving an incapacity benefit or disability premium within eight weeks of their claim. Many people coming off incapacity benefit and signing on for jobseeker's allowance will not have any entitlement to the disability premium.

The amendment seeks to allow the self-assessment disadvantage test used at renewal stage to be the basis for entitlement to disability working allowance where people do not qualify on other grounds. It would go some way towards extending disability working allowance to disabled people who obtain work but are debarred from that allowance because they no longer have a qualifying benefit. I beg to move.

16 May 1995 : Column 552

Lord Carter: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to make one point to the Minister. Those of us who slogged through the Bill which introduced the DLA and DWA remember the Government's expectation of a caseload of 50,000, as the noble Lord mentioned. At the time we expected a caseload of 16,000. It is very worrying that the actual figure is only just over 7,000. As the noble Lord said, fewer than one-sixth of those eligible claim the benefit. It will be interesting if the Minister can tell us, either now or later in writing, what action the Government are taking to ensure that the benefit is taken up as it should be.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page