Mr.
Hunt: Before we conclude and before external events
intervene, let me deal with the Minister’s two final
points. First, let me
be absolutely clear that my amendment simply seeks to ensure that
legislation reflects what the Secretary of State promised on the Floor
of the House. That is all we are trying to do. We want to ensure that
the Government are true to their word. I know that they want that and I
have absolutely no doubt about their good intentions in that respect,
but we want to ensure that the Bill commits them to doing what they say
they want to do and nothing
more. The point that
the Minister made about the amendment having the effect of requiring
the Government to offer work-related activity to people who could be a
danger to others is a good one, but that does not affect my support for
it because I can simply table further amendments to ensure that it does
not
apply to those individuals. We are trying to ensure that the Bill
reflects the commitments and promises that the Government made on a
number of
occasions. The
Minister’s second point is important and questioned whether we
want a Bill that assumes that everyone, no matter what their
disability, would want to move in the direction of work-related
activity. I stress that the amendment would cover only those who
volunteer to go in that direction. That is all we are seeking to do. We
want to ensure that the important structure that the Government are
putting in place in the Bill, which we welcome, gives as much hope to
people who are further away from the labour market as to those who are
nearer to it because we have real concerns that the existing structure
might unintentionally disadvantage that
group. On that basis,
I shall press the amendment to a
vote. Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
9.
Division
No.
3] Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman: Before we come to an expected debate on clause 9
stand part, I remind the Committee that we seem to have had an
extremely wide-ranging debate on amendment No. 227 and I hope that hon.
Members will bear that in
mind. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Ruffley: I am most grateful to you, Mr.
Amess. The Minister
may not have agreed with the conclusion of the previous debate, but I
congratulate Labour Members, as well as Opposition Members, on a lively
and constructive debate. We shall return to it
later. I have only
two questions; it will be a short stand part debate. I seek clarity
about an issue that is not dealt with under the clause but which has
been spoken of and which was prefigured in the Green Paper. It is the
ad hoc review of existing claimants under the new regime. My remarks
could have been made equally well under clause 8. The principle is the
same. The new PCA
applies only to claimants of the new ESA. The Green Paper said that,
for existing claimants of incapacity benefit, the Department was
planning to complement its existing case review of existing stock with
ad hoc case checks by a dedicated new team. The Green Paper
stated: “Where
these checks produce doubt about the nature or extent of an
individual's incapacity, a fresh PCA will be
required.”
That would be a new assessment, should
this part of the Bill become law. However, Mind said in evidence to the
Select Committee report on pathways published this spring that such ad
hoc reviews might induce fear and uncertainty among existing claimants;
and that they might be unnecessary, as eligibility for benefit was
already reviewed regularly.
My questions are these. First,
what are the intentions of the Department as regards doing ad hoc
reviews of existing claimants? Secondly, will the Minister
tellus about the processes that govern case reviews,
particularly the criteria to be used for selecting those existing
claimants who will be the subject of ad hoc checks? It is a small,
granular detail, but the theme for many of my hon. Friends and for
Labour Members is that existing claimants should not have their
interests overlooked. I know that the Minister would not want to
overlook existing claimants’ rights, but although the issue was
flagged up in the Green Paper, it did not make its way into the Bill.
It would be useful to hear his
thoughts.
Danny
Alexander: I, too, will be brief because, although it was
a little ill-tempered at times, in our previous debate we managed to
bring out several important points. It was a useful
discussion. I wish
to raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds. First, I would welcome a little more
clarification on the process by which people can move from the
work-related activity component into the support component. I seek
clarification on how and when it might take place, particularly for
those who have a condition that might fluctuate, or whose ability to
undertake work-related activities might be affected by other factors
such as caring responsibilities—a problem that has been
mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Secondly, I would be
interested to know a little more about the way in which the 46
descriptors were arrived at. I have received representations from
organisations speaking for those with severe mental illness who say
that they were not consulted as much on their limited capability for
work-related activity assessment as they were
consulted—thoroughly—on their limited capability for
work. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions on
one or two specific categories, and whether he envisages them
automatically being involved in the support component? For instance,
questions have been raised about people who are sectioned under the
Mental Health Act 1983, whether in hospital or in the community, under
guardianship orders or under the proposed new supervised community
treatment. Does he envisage that those people would automatically be in
the support group? Would they have to go through the assessment? How
would they be
treated? It has been
put to me that people who are so ill that they have to be treated
without their consent for their own safety are not in a position to
undertake work-related activity. For example, people subject to
residential orders will not be able to leave hospital. There are a
number of points on which the Minister could usefully flesh out the
Government’s
position.
5
pm
Mr.
Murphy: The House of Commons never fails to surprise me.
In 10 years here, that is the first time I have known an amendment to
be moved in Committee after those who tabled it had said that they did
not support it in full, and all in the middle of a fire alarm. That was
a novel experience. I
shall pick up the points that have been raised.
[Interruption.]
Mr.
Ruffley: The fire alarm sounds only when the Minister
speaks.
Mr.
Murphy: That is because I speak so
much. With your
indulgence, Mr. Amess, we had a wide-ranging debate on a
narrow amendment, so I shall be brief. On the point made by the hon.
Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, someone in the
work-related activity group could move into the support group if they
or their personal adviser or carer requested a revised PCA. Within that
issue is the matter of how we should support people with degenerative
disease, and in my experience there will come a point where such people
will be assessed as suitable for the support group. Whether somebody
would remain in the support group if they were assessed before being
sectioned under the Mental Health Act will depend to begin with on what
the medical expert said in the initial PCA. When they are sectioned, a
carer, personal adviser or anyone else involved in the process will be
able to request a new PCA. Conditionality, such as work-focused
interviews and work-related activity, would be suspended. That would
clearly be well within the boundary of good cause. We have set out in
the draft regulations and the notes for the Committee where we intend
to set the bar for good cause, and being sectioned under the Mental
Health Act is way beyond what we anticipate to be good
cause. I add
parenthetically—I move from gently to
parenthetically—that if Opposition Members had been successful
and amendment No. 227 had been accepted we would have had a legal
responsibility to undertake work-focused interviews and provide
work-related activity if a person sectioned under the Mental Health Act
had wanted them and volunteered for them. I add my sense of relief that
the Committee, in its wisdom, did not support that
amendment.
Adam
Afriyie: Would the Minister have supported the amendment
had that exclusion been
made?
Mr.
Murphy: I have already explained that there is no need for
the amendment because of the Employment and Training Act
1973—that is reason No. 1. Reason No. 2 is that it would have
moved us in the wrong direction in finding the appropriate way to
support people with mental illnesses and fluctuating conditions. There
were many reasons not to support the
amendment. I have
been encouraged to digress, Mr. Amess, but I deal now with
how benefit checks will be carried out. We know from our constituency
casework that when people are called for an interview on benefit
entitlement, they often think, “What’s this about? Why is
this happening to me? Has someone told them something? What does this
mean for me?” There is a sense of worry in many instances, as we
all know from the people who come to talk to us at our surgeries and to
whom we talk in our constituencies. In terms of the current PCAs and
benefit entitlement observations, I should like to see a system that is
more regularised in that we would tell customers what would be expected
within a set period of time. Perhaps at the point when they had applied
for incapacity benefit, the norm would be that they would be called and
they would have a conversation every year, every two years or whatever,
so that there was a sense that this was part of the system.
Particularly for those with mental health illnesses, we should not add
that sense of worry that they must have done something wrong or that
they were no longer entitled to the benefit and that is why the letter
came through the
post. Incidentally,
there is an important piece of work for us to do to ensure that our
forms and letters are much more customer-friendly, particularly as we
roll out ESA. One of the things I have been doing in recent weeks, and
will continue to do, is sitting with those who have a recent and
current experience of a mental health illness and discussing how they
think we should restructure some of our communications. It is not
something we issue press releases about or issue the names of
participants, but it is important to get this redesign for ESA right.
Listening to people who have experienced frustration with the current
process is
important. As for
continued entitlement to the ESA system, if there is a change in
condition that is the point at which a new assessment would take place
about whether someone was still entitled to ESA at work-related
activity level or at support group level. We will learn from best
practice how often that should be. One of the lessons that we should
take from incapacity benefit is the one I mentioned earlier, which is
that we should seek to ensure that those with an experience of mental
health know that this is an accepted part of the process. It is not
because they have done something wrong and it is not because someone
somewhere inside this great government machine thinks that they are no
longer entitled to it. It is just a continuing part of keeping in close
contact with the customer. It is part of work-focused interviews. It is
part of the personal adviser arrangements; and it is part of continuing
to ensure that we take account of changing medical circumstances that a
customer may experience. We are in the realm of comment rather than
specific response here. We are trying to build best experience into the
new system.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 9
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Work-focused
health-related
assessments
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in
clause 10, page 8, line 1, leave
out from ‘allowance’ to end of line
2.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 28, in
clause 10, page 8, line 39, leave
out subsection
(5). No. 32, in
clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave
out from ‘allowance’ to end of line
22. No. 34, in
clause 11, page 10, line 17, leave
out subsection
(5). No. 36, in
clause 12, page 11, line 30, leave
out subsection
(5).
Danny
Alexander: It is good news that the Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling
(Mrs. McGuire), will be responding to these amendments. I
mean no disrespect to the other Minister; it is nice to have two of
them here. I do not think, Mr. Amess, that a clause stand
part debate is scheduled for this clause.
The
Chairman: I am content that there be a clause stand part
debate, but I will see how the debate on the amendment
proceeds.
Danny
Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I have one or
two wider points to make about the nature of work-focused
health-related assessments. Can the Minister confirm that those
assessments are intended to be similar in some ways to the capability
assessment and report that is currently undertaken in the pathways
areas, in focusing very much on what people can do—identifying
activities in which they can take part and specific health
interventions that may help them to get themselves closer to the labour
market and ready for
work? There has been
some concern that the capability report currently used in the pathways
areas is doing some work that is similar to what the personal
capability assessment is designed to do, particularly under the revised
programme that has been
introduced.
| 
