Welfare Reform Bill

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: †Mr. David Amess, Mr. Jimmy Hood

† Afriyie, Adam (Windsor) (Con)

† Alexander, Danny (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD)

† Banks, Gordon (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)

† Boswell, Mr. Tim (Daventry) (Con)

† Brown, Mr. Russell (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)

† David, Mr. Wayne (Caerphilly) (Lab)

† Engel, Natascha (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab)

† Heppell, Mr. John (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)

† Hunt, Mr. Jeremy (South-West Surrey) (Con)

Laws, Mr. David (Yeovil) (LD)

† McGuire, Mrs. Anne (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)

† Mountford, Kali (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† Murphy, Mr. Jim (Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform)

Penrose, John (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)

Robertson, John (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab)

† Ruffley, Mr. David (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con)

† Seabeck, Alison (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab)

John Benger, Chris Shaw, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Column number: 191

Standing Committee A

Tuesday 24 October 2006

(Afternoon)

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Welfare Reform Bill

Clause 9

Limited capability for work-related activity

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 227, in page 7, line 40, at end add—

‘(5) Regulations under subsection (1) shall—

(a) ensure the full programme of work focused interviews is offered to those in the support group who indicate a desire to take part in these aspects of the programme,

(b) not penalise those persons for failing to participate in these activities, and

(c) treat engagement in—

(i) part time work,

(ii) voluntary work,

(iii) training courses, and

(iv) community activities

as valid outcomes from the work focused interviewprocess that would not automatically lead to a suspensionof payment of the employment and support allowance.’.—[Mr. Hunt.]

4 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim Murphy): We were in the middle of my response to the comments made by Opposition Members. I started by referring to Sarah in the case study in our paperwork and I shall continue from there.

For clarification, the significant point in case study 1 is that Sarah’s condition gradually improved.

I apologise for not greeting you at the start, Mr. Amess. It is great to see you in your place on this sunny afternoon, rather than bleak morning.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Committee that someone is given access to the support group because they have attained the 15 points required and met one of the 46 descriptors. Nevertheless, if that person sought to volunteer for work-focused interviews or work-related activity or, indeed, to enter the world of paid employment, if permitted of course, they would still be treated as a member of the support group in terms of their assessment. Only a medical assessment or a new personal capability assessment can end a person’s membership of the support group. In such circumstances, no member of a support group would be punished for undertaking work-focused interviews or work-related activity. It would not be the volunteering itself that would take someone out ofthe support group, but the new personal capability

Column number: 192

assessment or, as in Sarah’s case—the case study is very clear—the changing nature of the condition. Some conditions improve gradually over time.

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD): I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He makes a very important point. Will he clarify what circumstances, in a case such as Sarah’s, or one in which someone has perhaps engaged successfully in work-related activity, would trigger a new personal capability assessment?

Mr. Murphy: That is difficult because unlike Sheffield Dave, case study Sarah is not a real person. However, a new personal capability assessment could be requested primarily by a personal adviser who might notice a change in the circumstances, for better or worse. That would be the main means for requesting and carrying out a new PCA.

Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) about reassessment, would the new PCA need to be triggered by the personal adviser or client, or could a carer take an interest and perhaps prompt the adviser? Would that be an acceptable trigger?

Mr. Murphy: Our preferred option would be through the personal adviser. We have been clear about the opportunity for interaction between a carer and an adviser. For example, from 2008, customers seeking the employment and support allowance should be encouraged to take an advocate with them where sanctions might be involved or they have to prove good cause. There should be a close working relationship between an advocate or a family member, and the customer and the personal adviser. That sort of interaction could lead to the personal adviser requesting a new PCA.

May I turn to the points raised before lunch?

Mr. Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): I want to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey about what triggers a PCA. Is the Minister aware that a number of people think that a change in employment status can trigger an assessment of a person’s entitlement to the disability living allowance? That is a serious matter because it is a disincentive to people wanting to engage in employment. The Child Poverty Action Group argues that anecdotal evidence indicates that moving into employment can trigger a reassessment and removal of DLA, which can leave people worse off if they access work. Is the Minister aware of those concerns?

Mr. Murphy: I have not had the opportunity to quote from the pamphlet that the hon. Gentleman has in his possession, but he acknowledges that it is anecdotal evidence.

We will structure the new employment and support allowance entitlement according to our policy intention and legal position. It is the personal capability assessment, not an anecdote or pamphlet,

Column number: 193

that will determine whether someone is in the support group and attracts the higher level of benefit, and we have discussed that in great detail. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and, through him, the authors of the pamphlet.

Mr. Hunt: This is very important because it gets to the nub of the question whether the structure of the benefits system is a big disincentive to people engaging with the world of work and because promoting such engagement is the point of the entire Bill. If the Minister does not want anecdotal evidence, will he accept actual evidence from Citizens Advice about voluntary work? Citizens Advice says that

“our evidence shows that sometimes when people undertake voluntary work, it is sometimes interpreted as indicating that they are capable of work and therefore not entitled to benefit.”

I am happy to supply the Minister with the evidence from Citizens Advice, but is he aware of those concerns and will he do anything to address them?

Mr. Murphy: There is only one person in the Committee who seems to be confused, and that is the hon. Gentleman, although I hope that that is accidental. The fact is—I cannot be any clearer than this—that the decision on whether a person will be in the support group will be based on the evidence from a medical assessment carried out by a medical expert. If they meet the 15 points, they are entitled to ESA; if they meet one of the 46 descriptors, they are in the support group—it is as clear as that. We could not be any clearer about the employment and support arrangements. Which part of that does the hon. Gentleman not understand?

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the Minister, and I understand all of what he said. However, that was not the point that I was discussing; my point related to what triggers a PCA reassessment and to people’s concerns that it can be triggered by a change in employment status. I have given the Minister anecdotal evidence from the Child Poverty Action Group and Citizens Advice that the PCA can be triggered by a change in employment status. If so, it is a major disincentive to people engaging with the world of work.

Mr. Murphy: I can do no better than repeat the response that I gave, although perhaps I can rearrange some of the words. It is the personal capability assessment that will determine whether someone is entitled to ESA and/or the support group, not a change in whether they are volunteering or undertaking work-focused interviews or work-related activity.

The hon. Gentleman might want to make a wider point about DLA, which, like other benefits, can be an in-work benefit, but we are talking about an entirely different benefit entitlement with an entirely different structure for an entirely different purpose. We have been very clear about that, but if he feels that there is genuine concern and confusion—other than in his own mind, from time to time—about a lack of clarity as regards ESA, about entitlement to the support group and about the fact that we will not punish anyone who, for whatever reason, is determined to undertake work-focused interviews or work-related activity when

Column number: 194

we have not requested it as a condition of entitlement to benefit, I will be happy to join him in finding ways to tackle the issue. As I said, however, we have been very clear with all the disability organisations and in the Bill, as well as in our briefings, draft regulations, meetings, speeches and our comments on Second Reading and in Committee. We have absolutely no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman—quite fairly, I am sure—is concerned about.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying my earlier point about what might trigger a new PCA. He made it clear that engaging in work-related activity, or even potentially getting back into work, does not, of itself, trigger a new PCA. He also made it clear that incapacity benefit personal advisers will potentially be in a position to trigger a new PCA. Will he therefore reassure the Committee that the points that he has just made about the circumstances that will or will not trigger a new PCA will be in the guidance to those advisers?

Mr. Murphy: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a reasonable request. As I said, the personal advisers will trigger the PCA. I should add that Jobcentre Plus decision makers will also have the power to request a new PCA. Through a carer or GP, the customer could additionally request a review of the outcome in terms of their entitlement to ESA or the support group.

As I said, if the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) genuinely feels that there is lack of clarity despite the clear way in which we are setting out our position today, I shall be happy to hear from him, either in writing or in some other way, how we can ensure that people outside the Committee understand our position. The medical assessment will entitle someone to ESA, not the fact that, for whatever reason, someone has taken up or volunteered for work-focused interviews or work-related activity. We are not taking in the Bill the power to do what the hon. Gentleman, perhaps reasonably, is concerned about in terms of conditionality and sanctioning. I hope that that is clear but if, despite our efforts, there is still concern about ESA rather than DLA—they are different benefits for different purposes—I shall be happy to correspond or converse with him.

Where I think there is lack of clarity—we know this from constituency cases—is in the linking rules. There is a genuine lack of understanding. We can see whyand there is a shared responsibility for that. The Government could do more, as I am sure could Members of Parliament in various ways. The voluntary sector could also do more although it already does fantastic work—Citizens Advice does great things. Perhaps we could all do more together on the linking rules. I am sure that private voluntary sector providers, pathways and Jobcentre Plus could do more, but, importantly, Jobcentre Plus will continue to carry out the first of the work-focused interviews so that all the entitlements are spelled out at that stage. That is part of the core script for what Jobcentre Plus will say to its customers at the first work-focused interview.

Specifically on money, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey consistently raises the issue for the right reasons and

Column number: 195

to keep us on our toes to ensure that we maintain our commitment to our funding model. I shall repeat what I have said on more than one occasion. The question does not change, nor does the answer. I am not suggesting that the question should change and he should accept that the answer will not change. The roll-out of pathways has the same funding model as the current pathways.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I did not intervene earlier because I missed some of the earlier exchanges and did not want to rehearse them because of my absence. The Minister referred to work-related interviews and indicated that there will be a formal script to rehearse the benefits and conditions under which the benefits are payable. My constituency experience and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members is that there are many cases of the Department’s argument being not on the facts of the case but on what was or was not alleged to have been said either on the telephone or at interview. In the interests of clarity and an audit trail, can he give attention to the need for personal advisers at work-focused interviews, particularly the crucial first one, to establish clearly and in writing if necessary some evidence of what is being said to customers so that there is not an argument afterwards about whether they were told the particular circumstances in which the benefit is available?

---

Prepared 25 October 2006