Mr.
Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The
problem is about not only language that in the minds of some people may
be threatening, but language that is meaningless, unhelpful and opaque.
Everyone in this House must take more cognisanceof plain
English. In the document that the hon. Gentleman quotes, the language
bears no relation to how we talk in the 21st century. Ministers are
sensitive to the issue and they are disability-aware, but will the
Minister respond to my proposal for a standard letter requesting the
work-focused-interview, the subject of this clause, to be made
available to the Committee? If not, will he suggest why it is not a
sensible proposition?
10.15
am
Danny
Alexander: I endorse the suggestion made by the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds, although I think that the Department has
set up groups involving bodies that represent disability organisations,
which could advise on those matters. It is an important
point. I
want to raise a few points in addition to those already raised on
clause 11. I join the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell)
in welcoming the fact that we have draft regulations. A problem with
draft regulations is that they sometimes raise more questions than they
answer, and I should like to probe the Minister on a few aspects of
them.
Draft
regulation 6, on page 24 of the booklet, sets out in some detail the
requirements that must be fulfilled for a claimant to be regarded as
having taken part in the interview. A quite long list of conditions
must be satisfied, such as that the person must give information about
work-related activity that they have undertaken. However, perhaps the
Minister will consider, when he redrafts the regulations for
presentation to a Committee—of which we may both be
members—after the Bill is passed, the fact that they do not
contain, in addition to the obligations on claimants at the
work-focused interviews, any reference to what the adviser will do.
That is important because, as all parties in the Committee have pointed
out, a sense of the reciprocity of responsibilities, and of the fact
that advisers have responsibilities, is needed. I agree with the hon.
Member for Daventry that pathways advisers seem to take their
responsibilities seriously, but it is important to make it clear that
the adviser’s role in assisting the claimant is an aspect of the
work-focused interview. Ideally, that should be in the
regulations.
Mr.
Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree with me about
a further point, which I notice on looking at the draft regulations
rather more carefully than I did earlier? There is no provision for a
failure notice when a person has attended an interview but the official
does not deem them to have been co-operative. There is no provision to
issue a formal notice that states, “You attended the X jobcentre
and we were going to have a work-focused interview, but my judgment is
that your lack of co-operation meant that we did not achieve
one.” Nor is there any evidential basis for being able to
establish that, apart from the assertion of the officer
concerned.
Danny
Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes an
important point, to which I hope the Minister will respond, about how
the regulations will be interpreted when a decision is made about
whether someone is deemed to have taken part in an interview, when
there is the possibility that they were present but unco-operative. The
way in which the decision is communicated is also important. Perhaps
the Minister could dwell on that.
Without wishing to pre-judge
the debate that we shall no doubt have on a later amendment, tabled by
the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), I think it
might also be worth providing in the regulations that the work-focused
interview should, at least in the first instance, include discussion of
access to other benefits that people might get, to ensure that they
receive their full entitlement.
Draft
regulation 9 on page 25 of the booklet provides for waivers. It is my
understanding that in the pathways areas a work-focused interview can
be waived—and the pathways regulations specify this—when
it would not be of assistance to the persons concerned, or would not be
appropriate in the circumstances. However, draft regulation 9 states
that a work-focused interview can be waived only if someone is likely
to start work. Advisers will be able only to defer a work-focused
interview, not to waive it, on the grounds that it is inappropriate or
would not be of assistance. This may seem a pedantic point, but it is
important because it restricts advisers’ discretion. Given that
those ideas depart from previous
practice, will the Minister explain the basis for that change in
rationale? What implications does it have for advisers’ case
loads and training? On work-focused interviews more generally, what
thought has the Department given to ensuring that reasonable
adjustments aremade to premises under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that claimants can participate fully
in the interview? My
last, short series of points relates to the sanctions regime in the
clause. [Interruption.] When the Minister gets his
pen back, will he briefly set out the rationale behind that regime? The
work-related activity component can be subject to a sanction amounting
to 50 per cent. for the first four weeks and 100 per cent. after that.
What is the rationale behind choosing the50 per cent. figure?
What is the rationale behind choosing the four-week period, as opposed
to two weeks, six weeks or three months? Why not have more stages of
sanction and make the arrangements more progressive, rather than having
two rather steep steps?
Mr.
Ruffley: I just wonder whether more steps would add to the
complexity. I thought that the Committee and these proceedings were
dedicated to eradicating complexity.
Danny
Alexander: They may well add to the complexity. I was
merely trying to encourage the Minister to describe the thinking that
went into the provisions. He said earlier that every aspect of the Bill
had been subject to lengthy discussion between Ministers and officials.
He has no doubt chewed over the issue at some length, so he might be
able to describe his thinking on it.
There is also a question about
the period after which someone who has been sanctioned, but who has
subsequently met the requirements, can have their benefit reinstated.
How does that process work?
On the impact
of the new sanctions regime, has the Minister made any forecast of how
often he expects to use the new powers and how many people will be
drawn into the net? He said earlier that part of the idea behind the
Bill was to tackle child poverty, so has he made any assessment of the
impact that the sanctions—in whatever volume he predicts they
will be used—will have on child
poverty?
The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim
Murphy): Mr. Amess, I am delighted to see you
in your place on this sunny morning. I know that it is sunny because I
can feel the sun on my back and see it in the eyes of Opposition
Members—at least, I think that that is why their eyes are
glinting at me in the way that they are.
I had hoped that we would have
finished our conversation/exchange/debate on the clause before our
break, but I do not think that that will be possible. Although there
are not many amendments, more questions have been posed on this clause
than on many others to which more amendments were tabled. I shall try
to rush through the points that have been raisedand to make
some progress before and after thebreak, because we are
talking largely about the draft regulations. They will be agreed later,
should the Bill be agreed by this place and the other place, so there
will be further opportunities to discuss the specifics.
Let me turn first to the points
raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. The difficulty in conversing
with him is that he asks a question and then helpfully moves close to
answering it. That is not a bad trait; indeed, it is very helpful,
because it occasionally saves me from asking officials. He also used
the analogy of a saloon bar analysis, and although I have many images
of him, I cannot see him in a saloon bar.
None the less, the hon.
Gentleman asked several pretty reasonable questions, including what is
meant by participating in an interview. That is described in
regulation 6, on page 24 of the draft regulations, which shows that it
is not simply a matter of attending. He then asked about enforcing a
requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. That appears to
be covered by regulation 4(1). Of course, the conversation about the
draft regulations will continue as they make their way through this
place. It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at
half-past One
o’clock.
| 
