Danny
Alexander: I am listening carefully to the hon.
Lady’s comments and she is making quite a profound point about
people’s decision making, how they go about deciding whether to
take part and at what point in their life they choose to avail
themselves of whatever opportunities may be available. My point is that
this is not about imposing a right that could easily be seen as an
obligation on people. It is about making it clear that the obligation
lies with the Government, who must ensure that, where someone makes the
decision for themselves to come forward, the support available to the
work-related activity group is also available to someone in the
circumstances that the hon. Lady
describes.
Kali
Mountford: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman at least
understands my point; for that, many thanks. However, at many junctures
in this debate, we have discussed how people make decisions and the
information that they believe to be correct that is in fact incorrect.
I think that this is one of those things that could be easily
misunderstood and be detrimental to someone’s decision
making.
Kali
Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is such a jack-in-the-box,
how can I
resist?
Mr.
Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to
jump up. I just want to remind her that paragraph (b) in the amendment
specifically says that persons failing to participate in the activities
could not be penalised. I completely agree with her, but let us put
it more bluntly than she has. There may be people with disabilities or
severe disabilities who are simply not ready to start engaging in the
process of moving towards the world of work. That is a huge change.
Sheffield Dave is an example of someone for whom just living
independently, let alone working independently, was a huge step to
take. The hon. Lady is right about that. There are also people who it
is envisaged would be on the support component and desperately keen to
take the next step towards the world of work. All the amendment is
designed to do is to make some options open to them that may not
otherwise
be.
Kali
Mountford: Again, I completely understandthe hon.
Gentleman’s honourable intention with the amendment, but it is
misplaced on this occasion. We have had many discussions about the
sorts of things that people think they are required to do when in fact
they are not. Simply stating, as paragraph (b) does, that there is no
intention to penalise will not necessarily be the message that goes to
people. The message may well go to them that there would be a duty. I
prefer that people, through the entire process, decide for themselves
and volunteer for help, rather than feeling as if it is somehow being
imposed on them. We need to invest a great deal in people and we need
to ensure that we focus that investment correctly, appropriately and
adequately, but the amendment would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman
believes it
would.
Mr.
Murphy: In the time available before our interlude, I
shall try to respond to the various points that have been made. I shall
perhaps address at the start of our next sitting the more substantive
points made by my hon. Friend and
others. The hon.
Member for South-West Surrey said that this is one of the most
important amendments that he has tabled in the proceedings thus far and
perhaps will even be the most important in any of our 16 sittings in
total. We can have a conversation in our next sitting about why he
believes that, but I shall provide clarification now for him and
therefore for others. It surprises us sometimes, but other people do
read whatever is said here and therefore it is importantto
correct the hon. Gentleman when he has unintentionally come to the
wrong conclusion on case study 1 and Sarah. It is interesting that we
have heard of case study Sarah, Sheffield Dave and Karl Marx all in one
conversation. In
respect of case study 1, it is clear that the point is that
Sarah’s condition gradually improves. It is not the fact that
she volunteered but the fact that her condition improved that is
relevant. That is why she would come out of the support group. If
someone is in the support group and they volunteer, that does not prove
to the Government that the decision to put them in the support group
was wrong. It just shows that someone has a spark, a will, a
determination, above what would be expected through the assessment, to
try and to continue to
try— 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.
| 
