Mr.
Ruffley: I do not wish to interrupt the hon.
Gentleman’s flow, but again in a spirit of consensus, would he
agree that there are issues about sanctioning, for instance, about
which outside bodies and disability groups are concerned? I am sure
that the Minister will want to debate that in a spirit of
co-operation.
Danny
Alexander: I think that we could take this spirit of
co-operation and consensus thing too far. However, I agree with the
hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Minister will, too, because there
are important issues involved, including whether the people who
will have sanctions and conditions placed on them will have genuine
access to the support and help that they need.
This has rightly been described
by the Government as a something-for-something arrangement. We support
that approach, but we have to ensure that the something that is on
offer to support people back into work—the pathways to work
programme—is rolled out properly. I hope that the Minister will
be able to offer some assurances about the level of funding that will
be available for that package. I am concerned that there is a big
shortfall in the funding that will offer people outside the pilot areas
a “pathways to work lite programme”, which will mean that
the responsibilities that they are being asked to take on under the
Bill are not balanced by the opportunities and support that is on
offer. That is my first caveat.
The
hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made the important point that, over
the years, we have seen an increasing proportion of incapacity benefit
claimants claiming for reasons of mental health. One Government
evaluation of the pathways to work programme has suggested that
incapacity benefit was not as effective for people whose first reason
for claiming benefit was mental health. We need to return to that
issue, particularly when we are discussing the personal capability
assessment. We will need to ensure that there are protections and
assurances for the people involved. Likewise, there are important
questions to be asked about how quickly existing claimants will be
migrated on to the new benefit and to what extent both the conditions
and benefits of pathways to work will be available to
them. An important
issue regarding the amendments that we want to discuss is the extent to
which the Government’s approach offers any sense of support to,
or engagement with, employers. This is not just a supply-side issue
about getting people ready for work; it is also about ensuring that
employers are encouraged to keep their side of the
bargain. I am happy to
support the programme motion. The approach that has been
suggested—not having knives, but allowing the Committee to find
its own way—should command support from all Committee members. I
hope that we have a mature and sensible discussion, and I am sure that
that will be so. I dare say that we will find consensus on some issues,
but also that there will be disagreements and I am sure that they will
be discussed on both sides in the constructive spirit that has governed
the Bill’s proceedings so far.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause
1Employment
and support
allowance
Mr.
Ruffley: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in
clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 183, in
clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert
‘labour
market disadvantage related to physical or mental
condition’. No.
1, in
clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
205, in
clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
2, in
clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave
out paragraphs (a) and (b) and
insert— ‘(a) the labour
market disadvantage affecting such a person is related to his physical
or mental condition, and (b)
the disadvantage is such that it is not reasonable to expect him to
work.’. No.
206, in
clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave
out ‘limitation’ and insert
‘restriction’. No.
150, in
clause 1, page 2, line 4, after
second ‘to’, insert
‘be available for or
actively seek work’.
No. 9, in
clause 8, page 6, line 7, leave
out from ‘whether’ to ‘him’ in line 9 and
insert
‘the labour
market disadvantage affecting a person, and related to his physical or
mental condition, is such that it is not reasonable to
expect.’. No.
207, in
clause 8, page 6, line 7, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
208, in
clause 8, page 6, line 8, leave
out ‘limitation’ and insert
‘restriction’. No.
14, in
clause 8, page 6, line 24, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
209, in
clause 8, page 6, line 24, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
15, in
clause 8, page 6, line 25, after
‘examination’, insert ‘necessary to determine
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
16, in
clause 8, page 6, line 27, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’, and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
210, in
clause 8, page 6, line 27, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
17, in
clause 8, page 6, line 42, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’, and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
211, in
clause 8, page 6, line 42, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
18, in
clause 8, page 6, line 43, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’, and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
212, in
clause 8, page 6, line 43, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
19, in
clause 8, page 6, line 45, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’, and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
213, in
clause 8, page 6, line 45, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
20, in
clause 8, page 7, line 2, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’, and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
214, in
clause 8, page 7, line 2, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
21, in
clause 8, page 7, line 6, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’, and insert ‘a
labour market
disadvantage’. No.
215, in
clause 8, page 7, line 6, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
29, in
clause 10, page 9, line 8, leave
out ‘capability for work’ and insert ‘a labour
market
disadvantage’. No.
30, in
clause 10, page 9, line 9, leave
out ‘capability for work’ and insert ‘a labour
market
disadvantage’. No.
42, in
clause 17, page 14, line 31, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert
‘labour market
disadvantage’. No.
216, in
clause 17, page 14, line 31, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’.
No. 43, in
clause 17, page 14, line 32, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert
‘labour market
disadvantage’. No.
217, in
clause 17, page 14, line 32, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
44, in
clause 17, page 14, line 34, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert
‘labour market
disadvantage’. No.
218, in
clause 17, page 14, line 34, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
46, in clause 21, page 16, leave out lines
38 and 39 and
insert— ‘ “labour
market disadvantage” shall be construed in accordance with
section
2(5);’. No.
219, in
clause 21, page 16, line 38, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
220, in
clause 21, page 16, line 40, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’. No.
47, in
clause 21, page 16, line 42, leave
out ‘limited capability for work’ and insert
‘labour market
disadvantage’. No.
221, in
clause 21, page 16, line 42, leave
out ‘limited’ and insert
‘restricted’.
Mr.
Ruffley: Thank you, Mr. Amess. That must
be some kind of record.
The amendment
relates to an important piece of language, on which the Government
should be congratulated, as their approach is to get away from the
notion of incapacity. In the 1990s, invalidity benefit was changed to
incapacity benefit. In those days, which are not that long ago, it was
seen as an advance; but to me, and to most of us in the 21st century,
it seems a rather unfortunate phrase, which is not in tune with the
times. The
question, however, is whether the phrase “limited capability for
work”, which is an improvement, is necessarily the right one. In
the spirit of probing, I wonder whether the word
“restricted” might be better. I do not want to stray into
semantics, nor do I want to take up the Committee’s time, but in
the longer version of the Oxford English dictionary,
“limited” is described
as “appointed; fixed;
confined within definite
limits”. “Restricted”
might therefore be an improvement, as it is described in the same
volume as “of a person;
not allowed freedom of
movement”. There is a
sense in which, if “restricted” is used, people are being
limited, and not free to move. The reality is that if someone has a
limited capability for work, they are not being written off, because
the Bill makes it clear that if a person has a limited capability for
work and draws the support element of the allowance, it is not the end
of the story. It is explicit in the Bill and in what the Secretary of
State said that there will be movement within the elements of the
allowance.
We must be
clear about the language: when I was considering amendments to the
Bill, “limited capability” struck me as being not quite
right. The concept is fine, and the emphasis on capability is
tremendous; I am not talking about what people cannot do, but about
what they can do. I am
drawn inevitably to the other amendments, but I shall not list all of
them for fear of trying your patience, Mr. Amess. There are
attractions in the
amendments that relate to “labour market disadvantage”,
which I believe the Government will reject, but we need to explore the
issue because it is important. It is not just about mental and physical
conditions, which are mentioned in the amendments, being a limiting
factor, but about labour market disadvantage. In that respect, we need
to reflect on the debate among the many groups outside the House that
are watching this Bill carefully. One thing that my hon. Friends and
I—and Ministers, too—have picked up on is the fact that
there is a demand side in the labour market—which is what the
amendment refers to—and also a supply side. On the supply side,
individuals are getting support. As we have heard, at least 1
million—probably more—out of the 2.7 million want to
work. With the appropriate support, they are getting better and work
ready. What about the
demand side? If the employees are not up for—to put it
colloquially—employing those with limited capability or even
severe disability, it does not matter how well they make themselves,
what training they get, rehabilitation they do or support they get from
Jobcentre Plus or third sector bodies. Therefore, the words
“labour market disadvantage” in the amendment lead me
inexorably, and I hope validly, for the purposes of this clause, to
explore employment attitudes. One can have a limited capability if the
employer does not take on disabled people even though they are work
ready. The Bill has
great aims and ambitions and we want to try and ensure that the clauses
work to deliver those policy objectives. However, has enough attention
been given in the clause and elsewhere to encouraging employers to
employ people with disabilities in the workplace? I am not suggesting
for one second that this is an issue that Ministers have not thought
about. They have; I have spoken to them. I know that this is a big
issue. However, there does not yet appear to be enough on that in the
Bill. That is why the “labour market disadvantage”
amendment that we are speaking to is important.
There are some interesting
statistics that I would like to share with the Committee. In 2005, the
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development took a large sample of
employers drawn from all sectors. One in three employers responded that
they deliberately excluded people with a history of long-term sickness
or incapacity when recruiting staff. On the face of it, we all know
that that looks like straightforward unlawful discrimination that would
be covered in other Acts of Parliament and that deservedly should be
stamped on. However, when it comes to people who have been on
incapacity benefit—and, should it go through, the logic would
apply to the new employment and support allowance—the picture is
more complicated. Rather than being concerned about prospective
employees’ health per se, many employers are concerned about the
possibility that long-term claimants may lack up-to-date skills. They
may have been on incapacity benefit for five years or even longer and
lost the habit of working in a socialised work environment. Those were
the findings of the CIPD, and 43 per cent. of the employers surveyed
thought that long-term IB claimants would be less productive at
work.
Recruitment conveys risk for any
employer. They have the bottom line to worry about and they
say—we know what the employers’ arguments are—that
if the wrong person is hired, it can be costly to the whole enterprise.
However, when we are looking at labour market disadvantage, it is not
good enough in this day and age to say that employers’ attitudes
do not matter or that we will just try and exhort them generally. We
know that employers prefer to play safe, but that is not good
enough. The Royal
National Institute of the Blind has also done research on this subject
which shows that nine out of 10 employers thought that a blind or
partially sighted person was either difficult or impossible to employ.
It has said that the
“DWP needs to address evidence
highlighted in Report no. 202 ‘Employers’ and service
providers’ responses to the Disability Discrimination Act in
2003 and preparation for 2004 changes’ highlighting that nine
out of ten employers think blind and partially sighted people are
‘difficult’ or ‘impossible’ to
employ.” The
Department for Work and Pensions research report No. 139 on
employers’ attitudes said that 37 per cent. of employers would
take on people with mental health conditions, whereas 62 per cent.
would take on physically disabled people. A poll commissioned by the
Disability Rights Commission indicated that 25 per cent. of
non-disabled people would not tell their employer if they acquired a
disability or long-term health problem, for fear of
dismissal—partly because of such attitudes, which will restrict
a proper labour market for those with limited
capabilities.
11
am I support those
findings—one goes out there, so one knows that that kind of
thing goes on. Nevertheless, the CBI produced a survey that showed that
84 per cent. of firms now offer rehabilitation schemes to assist staff
to return to work. However, the CBI also acknowledged that 35 per cent.
of employers feel that they need more support from employees’
GPs, and/or want assistance with
costs. John
Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I have listened to
the hon. Gentleman’s comments on rehabilitation. I tried to
introduce a ten-minute Bill on that subject. Does he agree that the
Government need to consider people who become disabled through their
work, rather than just considering disabled people in general, and that
they have to legislate for
that?
|
