Mr.
Hunt: On that note, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have
heard yesterday’s announcement that the Conservative party has
asked Scope to undertake an audit of the party’s employment
procedures in respect of disability. Scope is also in discussions with
the Liberal Democrats about carrying out a similar audit for that
party. However, it has not yet heard back from the Labour party about
whether it will be willing to have an audit undertaken of its
practices. Perhaps the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey will ask the Minister to use his good offices to ensure that
the Labour party could set an
example. 12.45
pm
Danny
Alexander: I do not wish to try your patience,
Mr. Amess, too much on the issue, but I noted that
announcement yesterday. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I
announced a month ago that the Liberal Democrats had reached a similar
agreement with Scope to carry out an audit of our candidate selection
procedures. I was pleased to see the Conservative party follow suit,
and I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that
the Labour party does likewise. Encouraging the participation of
disabled people in public life is as much a part of the philosophy
behind the Bill as many of the other points that we debated
earlier.
One change
that could be made to promote the better engagement of employers with
this issue is the introduction of rehabilitation leave, which the hon.
Member for Glasgow, North-West has proposed in a Bill. The Liberal
Democrats will be more than happy to support his proposal when it is
debated in this Committee.
Mr.
Murphy: As is the case in Committee, some very talented
officials have drafted an excellent speaking note. With your
permission, however, Mr. Amess, I will answer some of the
specific points rather than simply repeat the note. For the record, it
explains the structure of clause 1. By reading the clause, hon. Members
will read what is in my speaking note, anyway, but if they wish me to
place a copy of it in the Library or to read it anyway, I will be happy
to do so. I have
known my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West for many years.
I would like to thank him for giving me advance notice of his detailed
question, but he did not, so I cannot. I reassure him that my answer
will be shorter than his question, and I encourage him to look at the
draft regulations and the supporting material, including page 4 on the
new structure of the benefit, which the Department published earlier
this month. It was sent to everyone on the day of their selection to
the Committee.
Basically, we
are restructuring the architecture of the benefits. There will be an
assessment phase, and then a basic allowance on top of which there will
be two separate levels. The first will be paid to those with
work-related activity, expectations and conditionality; and any higher
amount will be paid to more severely
disabled people for whom there is no requirement to
undertake any conditionality or work-focused interviews. Additionally,
all the benefit levels that 2.7 million people currently enjoy will be
protected during their transferral to the employment support
allowance. My hon.
Friend asked specifically about lone parents. When the ESA is
introduced, they can make their own choice. If they claim income
support because they are a lone parent, they can stay on it and keep
the disability premium. Alternatively, they can claim ESA because they
are sick and disabled, and obtain the new structure and support. I hope
that that clarifies the point for him.
Mr.
Hunt: Will the Minister explain that point, because the
Bill seems to say the precise opposite? Subsection (3)
says: “The
basic conditions are that the
claimant... (e) is not
entitled to income support”.
Does not that mean that the lone parent
of whom he talks would not have that
choice?
Mr.
Murphy: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.
The provision is based on the principle that someone cannot access two
contributory benefits at once. We would not pay it, and they would not
be entitled to employment support allowance if in receipt
of—
Mr.
Hunt: The Bill does not say “in receipt of”;
it says “entitled
to”.
Mr.
Murphy: That person would not be entitled to ESA, based on
the condition set out in subsection (3)(e), which is on entitlement to
income support. The individual will choose, based on the explanation
that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,
North-West.
Danny
Alexander: For the sake of clarity, the clause says that
the individual “is not
entitled to income
support”. The Minister
has just described a circumstance in which the individual would be
entitled to income support and ESA and would have the right to choose
between them. The Bill would specifically prohibit that circumstance by
making not having entitlement a condition. If the Minister is saying
that subsection (3)(e) should read, “is not claiming income
support”, that is quite different from what the Bill
says.
The
Chairman: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an
intervention.
Mr.
Murphy: I feel that it will be a similar point so I will
give
way.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As
I understood it, he effectively said that there would be a no-detriment
provision whereby if somebody chose—and Ministers are nodding at
that—to maintain their existing patterns of benefit because they
were
more advantageous or they preferred to do so, they would be permitted to
do so. My concern
relates to schedule 4. In paragraph 6, regulations make provision for
converting existing awards into awards of ESA. Now if they can do that,
will the Minister give the assurance that nobody will be required so to
convert if it would be to their loss, even if the conversion period
would be compulsory and that there would therefore have to be special
provision under the new
ESA?
Mr.
Murphy: To return to the point about clause 1(3)(e),
entitlement specifically means receiving rather than someone having
some type of underlying entitlement. I hope that that clarifies the
point for the hon. Gentleman. In terms of additional points raised by
the hon. Member for
Daventry—
Mr.
Murphy: I would like to make some progress on this point.
In terms of ensuring that there is a greater understanding of the new
benefit architecture and the means of entitlement to it particularly by
those with different circumstances and fluctuating mental and other
health conditions, the first work-focused interview, regardless of
whether pathways to work is rolled out through the public or private
and voluntary sectors—and as we have said publicly, our future
roll-out would be based in the private and voluntary
sectors—will be done through Jobcentre Plus. It is at that point
that the explanation of the different benefit opportunities will take
place. In terms of the
new benefit entitlements—whether it is ESA, JSA or another
benefit that might be available to the individual—advice will be
given on a face-to-face basis in the first work-focused interview with
Jobcentre Plus staff, regardless of whether the pathway area is in the
private, voluntary or public sector.
The hon. Member for Daventry
also raised the point about engagement with pathways. For all types of
reasons, it is important that there is local engagement between Members
of Parliament and those who are providing pathways at a local level,
even if it is to emphasise the cross-party nature of support for the
roll-out of pathways. Although there was not cross-party support for
the money that made pathways possible—with many people on this
Committee voting against it—the cross-party consensus is that
pathways is now the right way to go.
In the most recent roll-out of
Jobcentre Plus-based pathways, I have asked Jobcentre Plus district and
local managers to make contact with local Members of Parliament,
regardless of which party, so that there can be conversation at a local
level about the ways in which support can be provided to hon.
Members’ constituents. I will ensure that that takes place
because it is important that it does so.
On the
additional points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, it
is important—although he says that this is not the only piece of
legislation—to emphasise the sheer change and nature of the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There are 7 million employees and 1
million employers who can help drive change and as my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary has said, all
public authorities have to undertake the disability equality duty review
by December of this year. Although the review is not exclusively about
employment, it will focus on it. It makes an important point regarding
the local implementation of enlightened and progressive national
policies in the public sector. We have to make sure that that is
happening in as many interactions as possible in the public sector in
terms of our worthy goals and progressive policies. However, the hon. Gentleman was
being unduly kind—perhaps in the good-cop bad-cop arrangement
that he has with his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St.
Edmunds—
Mr.
Ruffley: Which is
which?
Mr.
Murphy: I am not going to be drawn on
that.
Mrs.
McGuire: It is the new Tories; they are both good
cops.
Mr.
Murphy: My hon. Friend offers an honest assessment, but I
will leave it
there. There
has been pretty fair criticism of the public sector for what does not
happen at the moment, and an implicit suggestion that the position is
much stronger in the private sector. Last week, I met some major
national companies to talk about our agenda, and they admitted to
having structural weaknesses in how they implement the policies. I am
not criticising them but making an observation which they themselves
offered about their inability, on occasion, to have that face-to-face
intervention at the point of sifting job applications, at job
interviews, or in relation to supporting employees at work. They are
looking for ways to ensure that their well intentioned and progressive
national policies can be rooted in as many interactions in local
branches and outlets across the United Kingdom. This issue presents
challenges in both the public and private sectors.
I move to the
points raised by the hon. Member for Inverness—I hope that he
accepts that title for the rest of the Committee and does not take it
as an insult to anywhere else. I am looking forward to an official
visit to his constituency soon, and am glad that he invited me to
visit, so I know that he will not take it as an insult if I refer to
his constituency simply as “Inverness”.
We are still committed to a
single working age benefit; that is one of our goals with
simplification. The Bill simplifies matters in an important way,
despite the reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Daventry about
ensuring that there is no complication as agreed on understanding among
customers and
claimants about the new architecture. We are replacing incapacity
benefit and income support that is allocated on the basis of disability
with ESA. That is an important change to the way in which benefits are
structured. I reiterate that we are committed in the long term to a
single working age
benefit. Mr.
Hunt: I apologise to the Minister for going back to his
earlier comments, but I just looked at the clock and wanted to make
some comments now. I welcome his comments about the single working age
benefit, but we have not quite resolved the matter of subsection (3)(e)
and the difference between people who are entitled to income support
and people who are claiming income support. Will he undertake that his
officials will reconsider the wording of that measure before the Bill
makes further progress through the House, because disability groups are
concerned that it seems to exclude a number of people from entitlement
to
ESA?
Mr.
Murphy: I will, of course, return to the point that the
hon. Gentleman reasonably raises. I also want to deal with the issue of
employer engagement, which has been raised again by hon. Members. We
work in close co-operation with the Disability Employment Advisory
Committee, which offers a fantastic, frank analysis of some of the
emerging challenges with the agenda in a way that improves the quality
of our work on disability and how we offer support to people entering
the workplace. The
hon. Member for Inverness asked about migration, which is important as
it concerns 2.7 million people, although if current trends continue
that number will be marginally lower in 2008-09. He probed our better
intentions about migration. Of course, this issue is partly affected by
resources and their availability, but our genuine intention, which is
based on the current analysis of IB, is that those who are most recent
to the benefit should be those most likely to have the opportunity to
get back to work. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, thus
confirming what the Government suggested, someone who is on incapacity
benefit for two years or longer is more likely to die, retire or never
work again. We have used that analysis for a migration strategy and
looked for ways in which to migrate the newest IB claimants on to the
new ESA. It being
One o’clock, the Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
