Mr.
Hunt: I do not wish to speak at length even though it has
been an important debate. Thanks to the analysis of the hon. Member for
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, we have come a little closer
to matters of concern regarding the funding that has been put in place
for the roll-out of the pathways to work programme under the Bill. If
his figures are correct, there has been a drop in funding from
£571 a head to a maximum—assuming that all the money is
allocated to pathways to work—of £327 a head. In
comparison with the pilot programmes, that is a 43 per cent. reduction
in funding. How does the Under-Secretary square that with the response
of the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in our last sitting
when I asked whether there would be enough funding? He
said: “The
funding model will be the
same” and went on to say
that “we are absolutely
satisfied that the necessary investment will be in place through the
£360 million that we have set
aside.” If that is so, he
has a duty to explain to the Committee why he thinks that it will be
enough if it represents a minimum drop of 43 per cent. in the
investment per head on the pathways
roll-out. The
Under-Secretary might also clarify why, on Tuesday, in refusing to come
to this 43 per cent. figure, the Minister also
said: “We are
not going to set a target per head. It will take asmuch as it
takes to support someone to get closer to thelabour
market”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee
A,24 October 2006; c.
195-99.] Either he does have a
limit on the amount of money that can be spent on this—the
£360 million that would equate to a minimum 43 per cent.
drop—or he does not. Ministers owe it not just to the Committee,
but to all the people who will be on the programme, to explain why the
Government are confident that a minimum43 per cent. reduction
per head in funding will be enough to fund an adequate roll-out of the
pathways programme. I
hope that the Under-Secretary will address my particular concerns about
the people in the support group, because they have more severe
disabilities and
will therefore require the most help to move closer to the labour
market. I am concerned that that level of reduction in funding will
make it difficult to give the necessary additional support to those
people, as it will be much more expensive and intensive than that for
people with less severe disabilities. I do not
want to rake over the arguments about the failings of incapacity
benefit, because we all agree that that system does not
work—that is why the Bill was introduced—but I want to
put my concerns to the Under-Secretary directly. There is concern on
both sides of the House that the incapacity benefit system parks people
who have an incapacity and effectively says, “We are paying you
a little bit extra, but that is it.” The whole purpose of the
new programme is to avoid that problem, and the Conservatives want to
ensure that that mistake is not repeated with people in the support
group. We want to make sure that all the options envisaged by the
pathways to work programme are as available to people in that group as
to those with less severe disabilities who are closer to the labour
market. I also agree
with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
about the importance of training, particularly cognitive behaviour
therapy, and measures to help to build up people’s confidence
if, for example, they have sustained a brain injury after a car crash.
The work-focused health-related assessment will be an important part of
that. However, it is difficult to understand how the sophisticated
training and medical understanding necessary to help people with those
issues will work in such an austere funding environment. I hope that
the Under-Secretary can give the Committee significant reassurance
about
that.
Mrs.
McGuire: To a certain extent, we are
revisiting our debate on clause 9, but I shall deal with some specific
issues and then refer, in particular, to funding. I reassure the hon.
Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that there has
been significant support for older people—those who are over
50—through the new deal for disabled people as one of the
options in pathways. Indeed, he might be interested to know that,
during the past year, 200,000 more older people have now gone into
work. The hon.
Gentleman also referred to rights and responsibilities. Will the
Committee reflect on why we are here discussing the Bill? I shall not
rake over the matter of incapacity benefit, but it is an example of
when the Government expected individuals to take on all the rights and
responsibilities themselves. In its generic sense, government abandoned
people and their responsibilities to 2. 7 million people, a figure that
was trebled under the previous Administration. It was a case when the
Government decided to stand back and more or less let people stand
where they hung. What underpins the Bill is the fact that we are
rebalancing those rights and responsibilities. Yes, individuals must do
something for something, but the Government also have a special
responsibility to those who need additional support at particular times
in their
lives.
Mr.
Hunt: Does the Under-Secretary agree that that
responsibility applies equally to the most severely disabled members of
the support group, as it does to the less severely disabled members of
the work-related activity group?
Mrs.
McGuire: I wish to make it clear to the Committee that,
when I talk about disabled people, I am not talking about one category
of disabled people. When I refer to those who are in receipt of
employment and support allowance, I am not talking about only one
category. Of course, I mean people who are in receipt of the support
element. I have spent my life working with disabled people and those
who have learning difficulties, and I do not think that it is always
necessary to put a lever in the discussions as the hon. Gentleman is
doing. Of course, I mean all disabled people including those in receipt
of support. I hope that he now takes it for granted that, when I am
referring to the spectrum of people on employment and support
allowance, I am talking about those who are furthest from the labour
market and those who are most severely
disabled.
Mrs.
McGuire: I will let the hon. Gentleman in, but to be frank
with him he is trying my patience on this
matter.
Mr.
Hunt: I will press the Under-Secretary. I accept her
reassurance that she is talking about all disabled people, but does she
therefore accept that it can often be a lot more expensive and
resource-intensive to help those furthest from the labour market to
have the same opportunities as those nearer the labour
market?
Mrs.
McGuire: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to
come some way towards meeting me on that point. I remind the Committee
that, when we introduced pathways to work, his party voted against
every single penny of investment that we wanted to put in to support
those who are most severely disabled as well as those who are closer to
the labour market. I am sorry that I have had to inject a little bit of
edge into the discussion, but it is about time that we started to
realise that we are all on the same track on this matter. The hon.
Gentleman continues diversifying and putting disabled people into
inappropriate categories. I appreciate that there are specific issues
relating to the support
group.
Mrs.
McGuire: I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to
intervene any more. I hope that he will now accept than when my
colleague the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform and I talk
about disabled people, we are encompassing all disabled people. That is
the philosophy underpinning the
Bill. Perhaps I can
now move on to other matters raised by hon. Members, specifically on
financing. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey has done his calculations, looked at the
parliamentary questions and so on, and come up with a figure. I can do
nothing other than reiterate what my hon. Friend said in earlier
discussions. We think that £360 million is the correct amount
with which to roll out the pathways
projects.
Opposition Members seem to get
tied down in the unit cost. We are not into unit cost. The hon. Member
for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) smirks, so I shall explain
why we are not into unit cost. As I said in an earlier debate, I
operated employment programmes under a unit cost, which could be
£13 a head, for example. The difficulty with the unit cost
approach is that it does not allow the resources to be directed to
those individuals who need more support and assistance, because there
is a
limit.
Mrs.
McGuire: Let me finish. Within a contract, some
individuals do not, perhaps, need quite as much investment as others
who happen to be on the pathways project. A unit cost limit is an
artificial barrier to extra support for
individuals.
Mr.
Hunt: The Under-Secretary talks about my making an
artificial division between groups of disabled people, but I am not
doing that; the Bill does it. Many disability organisations are
concerned that, in reality, there is a wide spectrum of disabilities
and it is hard to make such a division. We have accepted that division
in the Bill. No one is saying—I think that I am also speaking
for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey—that the cost per head should be identical or that
there should be equal costs for every person in the programme. An
average cost per head, taken for the programme as a whole, would appear
to be a huge reduction of 43 per cent in the roll-out of pathways to
work. The Under-Secretary owes it to the Committee to explain why she
thinks that it will be possible, with that level of reduction, to get
the same good results on the roll-out of the pathways to work programme
as in the
pilots.
Mrs.
McGuire: I re-emphasise the reassurances given by my
colleague the Minister of State in earlier discussions—we have
moved from a conversation to a discussion and perhaps even to a
debate—that we are confident that our funding model will deliver
our pathways programme. We can argy-bargy about the funding models in
Committee till kingdom come and perhaps not get to the basis of an
agreement. To a certain extent, as the hon. Member for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it is about trusting our funding
model and figures. We are sure that we can roll out pathways on the
funding model that we have presented to the
Committee. Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): In an effort to be
emollient, I shall take a slightly different tack, and I anticipate
that the answer to my question will be positive. Will the
Under-Secretary assure the Committee that nothing will be built into
the remuneration or general management appraisal of Jobcentre Plus
staff or contractors in respect of ESA that would suggest that there
was simply a target model? That might give rise to a perverse incentive
through which people got more by processing volume rather than applying
themselves to the particular cases of the individuals
concerned.
9.45
am
Mrs.
McGuire: I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman; I
had a slightly more robust conversation with his Front-Bench
colleagues. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I am happy to
clarify. There will be no staff incentives in respect of the throughput
of people on the pathways to work project. I hope that that reassures
him. If the Committee felt that staff were on some sort of bonus, that
might make life slightly more complicated and move against the
underlying philosophy of the
Bill. Kali
Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): Perhaps the approach of
Opposition Members is a function of their never having been in
government or having forgotten what that is like. Do we not learn a
great deal from piloting, which this Government have often carried out?
We have already taken account of all the set-up costs, so they do not
have to be repeated, and we have carried out the pilots, which have
been successful, so we now know how best to target resources. We do not
have to spend money again on the things that the pilots taught us
worked less
well.
Mrs.
McGuire: With her significant previous experience on the
Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend understands such issues. I do not
want to exhaust the
Committee— Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con) rose—
Mrs.
McGuire: Okay, she says
wearily.
Mr.
Ruffley: The Under-Secretary is weary; she is also more
touchy than normal. However, I am grateful that she has eventually
given way. [Interruption.] There is a bit of chuntering from a
sedentary position, but I want to put my point to the Under-Secretary.
There is a lot of confusion in this debate about the funding model. To
clear that up, will she undertake to publish details of her funding
model and the methodology and assumptions that underpin it, so that we
can have an open debate about
it?
Mrs.
McGuire: Sometimes we in Committees forget that we are
only part of a greater whole. Funding models will, of course, be
investigated and tested through the normal parliamentary
procedure—a Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and
so on. The hon. Gentleman does not need my reassurance that that will
happen; it is what actually happens. The issue is not just about our
talking here about a funding model, but all the other areas of
parliamentary scrutiny that will examine the funding
models.
Danny
Alexander: Will the Under-Secretary give
way?
Mrs.
McGuire: I am just about to answer the question about
whether we are investing just now. Is that what the hon. Gentleman
wanted to
know?
Danny
Alexander indicated
assent.
Mrs.
McGuire: There you are, Mr. Amess—I can
read minds as well. I should say in passing to the hon. Member for Bury
St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) that I am not touchy this morning;
this is me on my normal, robust form. He had the pleasure of Lord
Forsyth heading the Conservatives’ tax policy committee and if I
were not robust, I would not have given the hon. Gentleman an
opportunity that he did not think he wanted at the time.
I turn to the investment in IT,
about which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey asked. Of course, we have the ability pre-spend under
section 28, particularly on IT. I am not prepared to give the hon.
Gentleman the exact figures. We are issuing contracts and it would be
difficult to put some of that information into the public domain. As I
have already said, however, we operate under parliamentary scrutiny,
which will allow for scrutiny of the figures at an appropriate
time. With the
greatest respect, I do not think that any of us has focused on clause
10 in quite the way that we should have done. Nevertheless, I hope that
the clause can now stand part of the
Bill.
| 
