 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Welfare Reform Bill |
Welfare Reform Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks †
attended the Committee Standing Committee AThursday 19 October 2006(Afternoon)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]Welfare Reform BillClause 8Limited
capability for
work Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 255, in
clause 8, page 6, line 7, after
‘work’ insert ‘or work-related
activity’.—[Mr.
Hunt.] 1.30
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following amendments: No. 256, in
clause 8, page 6, line 9, after
‘determined’ insert ‘by a single
assessment’. No.
251, in
clause 8, page 6, line 24, after
‘work’ insert ‘or work-related
activity’. No.
252, in
clause 8, page 6, line 27, after
‘work’ insert ‘or work-related
activity’.
The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim
Murphy): Welcome back, Mr. Amess.
Mr. Hood was here for the shorter sitting this morning. If
our proceedings do last for three hours I hope that you do not develop
that Scottish dialect that seems to be so common in the
Committee.
Mr.
Murphy: Well, in passing the baton to you, Mr.
Hood will have confirmed that we had a really constructive debate. I
see no reason why that should not continue this afternoon. He allowed
us some latitude in our debate on clause 8 to wander on to related
aspects of clause 9. I understand that you, quite rightly, will rule it
out of order if we stray too far in that direction. The clauses are
closely connected. Mr. Hood also allowed the hon. Member for
South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) to refer to the fact that I was
the only Member of Parliament who at some point in the past could name
the five Spice Girls. I do not know whether it is because I am getting
older but I am unable to name the four members of the Arctic Monkeys or
the four members of The
Killers.
Mr.
Murphy: Well, perhaps I am a little more in touch than my
hon. Friend. Let me make some progress, as that is not what we are here
to talk about. A
number of points have been raised. I share in the enjoyment of the
comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon.
Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). We heard from
her this morning and we will hear from her in much greater detail as we
deal with various clauses. Not only did she manage to secure that
constituency in Stirling, but she inadvertently created the
Conservative party’s current problem. The gentleman she defeated
is the author of their tax report, which they are both for and against
today.
Mr.
Hunt: Does the Minister welcome the economic prosperity
that the low-tax climate of the 1980s engendered? We have been able to
be much more generous in disability benefits since then than we might
have been had we followed the policies advocated up to
1979.
Mr.
Murphy: Of course we should not go further down that road.
We will at various points in our proceedings allude to the levels of
child poverty and workless households and the trebling of people on
incapacity benefit and the fact that the first act of any Conservative
Government when they came to power was to cut
benefits.
Mr.
Murphy: I will not give way. We will try to make some
progress on the basis of consensus. The hon. Gentleman quite fairly
reminded the Committee of the prevalence of poverty in households where
there is one or more disabled adult or one or more disabled child. He
is aware that there is a Treasury-led review of some of these issues.
Like me, he attended some of the hearings, chaired very ably and
eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston
and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for
Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble).
The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right to identify that prevalence: 26 per cent. of children
in poverty in the UK today live in a household with one or more
disabled adult. There is a clear connection, which is why the hon.
Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander)
reminded us that one of the key aims of the Bill is to make a
contribution to eradicating that relative child poverty. Our assessment
is that they number around 100,000 when one considers that about one in
six of the people on incapacity benefit have a dependent
child.
I turn now to the specific
points that have been raised. One point was raised slightly
tangentially by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John
Robertson) and others about the level of confusion and the need for
continuous and repeat assessments. Of course we should seek to minimise
the need for repeat assessments, which should be a key element of our
business design processes, with one important caveat: we seek
continually to measure and assess fluctuating physical and mental
health conditions, so it would be entirely appropriate to set up a
system of regular assessments; indeed, we would be criticised if we did
not do so. As we discussed in an earlier sitting, the personal
capability assessment review is not a snapshot in time but a
measurement of a citizen’s or customer’s experience of
their disability or limitation over a
period.
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Does the Minister agree that
the golden thread running through the decision making should be whether
the assessment process is genuinely intended to be supportive of the
claimant rather than punitive? If the Minister, with his greater
eloquence than mine, can persuade people that it is in their interests
to undergo multiple assessments, which are something of an ordeal, in
order to get a picture of their situation, that is one thing, but
constantly nagging them in the interests of a bureaucratic system would
be seen as another.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that relates
to the issue of confusion, particularly over the linking rules, which
was raised earlier. As hon. Members know, constituents often say,
“I think I might want to come off incapacity benefit and try the
world of work but I would lose all my benefits. I am worried about what
will happen to me if it doesn’t work out.” That is why
the linking rules exist and why this month we implemented the extension
of those rules from one year to two. I confirm that the linking rules
will also apply in respect of employment and support allowance. If
someone tries the world of work and it turns out not to be appropriate,
for whatever reason, the improved linking rules from this month will be
carried over on to
ESA. Kali
Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): On the matter of the
linking rules, which are very important in encouraging people to try
the world of work, can the Minister confirm that it is also important
that people take the advice of their personal adviser and find out what
applies in their case, rather than listening to Doris next door and the
gossip on the
street?
Mr.
Murphy: We cannot stop people passing on gossip on the
street. However, the availability of strong and clear advice is
important. I visited
the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the
Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), recently and met
a lady who
had extensive experience as a paramedic—I will not name her as I
have not asked her permission to do so. She had to undergo a brain
operation and it had been suggested that she would make a full recovery
and return to being a paramedic. That was not the case and members of
her family said that she would lose her benefit if she tried to work.
Informal advice can useful, but it must be accurate. That is why
citizens advice bureaux, the voluntary sector and non-governmental
organisations are crucial. When, with Parliament’s approval, we
implement this Bill and the employment and support allowance, we will
need to make a sustained effort to ensure that the voluntary sector and
others can pass on accurate and objective
advice. Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD): I agree with the Minister’s point, but is it not
also important to ensure that staff at Jobcentre Plus give accurate
advice? In particular, when someone is applying for one benefit they
should also be given advice on their entitlement to other benefits, if
any, so that people get what they need in full. Is the Minister
concerned about cases in my constituency in which someone has turned up
to claim benefit and the security guard at the door of Jobcentre Plus
has said, “Oh no, you’re not entitled”? That has
been a barrier to people, which should not have been
there.
Mr.
Murphy: In general, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but
if he is seriously suggesting that a security guard in a jobcentre in
his constituency is making assessments of benefit entitlement then that
is a very serious allegation, and he should bring it to my attention
and I shall investigate it. He has said it on the record today, so I
look forward to the evidence being
provided.
Mr.
Boswell: While we are on the same general thought, and
without allegations being entered into against our own company, will
the Minister also consider the possibility of a public information
campaign through MPs to their constituents? Understanding should not be
confined to the anoraks who grace the Committee—even
partially—with their comprehension of matters; the general body
of MPs who are trying to advise their constituents and point them in
the right direction should understand the changes and be able to
explain that they are not intended to be
penal.
Mr.
Murphy: That is another fair point, in response to which I
have two comments. First, the hon. Gentleman’s point has
importance even while the Bill is passing through Parliament, because
we all know the diversity of the conditions experienced by our
constituents—the frustrations and worries that some of them may
have when they hear a conversation in Parliament about welfare reform.
Thus far, the debate at a political level has been entirely
appropriate, and there has not been the type of scaremongering that has
sometimes occurred in the past, fairly or unfairly. We all have a
responsibility to consider the tone and content of our conversation on
welfare reform, so that those who pick up newspapers or who hear a clip
on
Radio Five Live or Radio 4, or wherever, do not inadvertently take the
wrong message from our
deliberations.
Mr.
Ruffley: On that point, will the Minister join me in
deprecating the use in certain newspapers of banner headlines that
refer to scroungers and cheats? On a glance from the general reader,
such headlines imply that anyone who claims benefits may potentially
want to work the system, as such newspapers suggest. All of us here
should be extremely careful to ensure that the debate is conducted in
the terms that the Minister just
described.
Mr.
Murphy: That point is entirely fair. The hon. Gentleman
may wish to put on the record the newspapers that he considers to be
most
culpable.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 20 October 2006 |