 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Welfare Reform Bill |
Welfare Reform Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks †
attended the Committee Standing Committee AThursday 26 October 2006(Afternoon)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]Welfare Reform BillClause 11Work-focused
interviews Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 1.30
pm Question
again
proposed.
The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim
Murphy): Welcome back, Mr. Amess. I am
delighted to see that you have returned after our break that seemed to
last twice as long as our sitting, which is an unusual way in which to
run things. Nevertheless, I am delighted to see you
here. I was in the
middle of what I hope will be a short contribution because, as I was
saying, many of the questions were about the details of the
regulations, but there will be opportunities to shape them when they
come out of draft and are taken through the formal process before being
agreed by Parliament. Where I can, I shall respond to specifics without
going into the detail of every draft
regulation. I shall
return to the points made by the hon. Member for Daventry
(Mr.
Boswell). In response
to the debate on why a substantial number of people do not participate
in the first work-focused interview, I said that I could not imagine
him in a saloon bar. I think that that was the gist of the point that
he made before the break.
Mr.
Murphy: I have not sought to question or second-guess the
hon. Gentleman’s statistic of 23 per cent. so the Committee will
of course take it at face value, and on the basis of that figure, I
accept his point
entirely.
Mr.
Boswell: For the avoidance of doubt, the piece of paper
from which I was reading has the imprimatur of Jobcentre Plus on it, so
I think that the Minister had better agree with
it.
Mr.
Murphy: It must be true, but the fact that the hon. Member
for Daventry said it gives it additional credibility in
Committee.
A variety of scenarios—we
cannot rehearse them all now—could lead to the deferral of a
work-focused interview. For instance, someone might be close to the
labour market already, or be recovering from an ailment or injury, such
as a broken leg or an accident at work, or be taking up work. Those are
the types of circumstances that could reasonably lead to a deferral.
The hon. Member for
Daventry asked reasonably about the timing of future work-focused
interviews. Our intention is that the first work-focused interview
should continue to take place in week eight of the 13-week assessment
phase and provide advice about the labour market and the gateway to any
benefits that an individual is entitled to, either out of work or as
they get close to and eventually into the labour market. That would be
an opportunity to offer wider benefit advice in a way that nearly
always happens really effectively in pathways at the
moment—although, as is always the case, we can do more there as
well. The hon. Member
for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) asked
about sanctions—I think that I responded to the question about
what taking part means.
I share the concern of the hon.
Member for BurySt. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) about not
complicating the system with too many intricacies and thus creating
what he noticed in other clauses—complexity and
confusion—and which we discussed how to avoid. We tested
analysis and thinking and concluded that the50 per cent.
reduction over that four-week period will be about the right level of
sanction necessary to encourage people to participate again in the
conditionality. If the conditionality is not adhered to there is of
course the second element of benefit reduction. As the hon. Gentleman
knows, the total reduction can be only for the total amount of
work-related activity. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs.
McGuire), said, we would never impose sanctions during the 13-week
assessment phase because that would take it below the current
jobseeker’s allowance—we would not seek sanctions beyond
that level. Without
testing every scenario, which we will do in discussions on regulations,
reinstatement would take place if the person were to comply with the
conditionality—in other words, attended work-focused
interviews—or if on appeal they showed good cause and that the
sanction was inappropriate. Of course, we have set out what would be
interpreted as good
cause. I do not want
to lengthen the debate, but I remind the Committee of parts of the
draft regulations that have been provided on clause 11,
“Work-focused interviews”. Page 26 does not contain an
exhaustive list of examples of good cause, but the sanctions and
safeguards provided for are on page 6. Issues about deferrals are on
page 7. I am inclined
to wait for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to return to his
place, because I want him to know that I could not agree with him more.
[Hon. Members: “Here he is.”] As I
was saying, Mr. Amess, the hon. Gentleman made a proposal on
literature. I agree entirely, which is why we put in train some time
ago exactly what he has suggested. I will shortly receive a response
from officials in the Department for Work and Pensions on how the forms
can be simplified, and
the hon. Gentleman is right that we should share it
with lobby groups and organisations. The Under-Secretary has offered to
do likewise with carers’ organisations to find out whether they
believe it to be sensitive enough. As I said earlier in our
proceedings, we must also share it face to face with people with mental
health illnesses. That is why I have brought together a group of people
to do so. I reiterate that the intention is not to make that a matter
of media focus; it will be a private conversation with people whom we
have already met without any such focus. That is the way in which it
should continue. We will listen to their experiences and test the
redesigned forms with them. The lobbying and carers’
organisations have a crucial part to play, but we also want to
road-test the forms with those who will fill them
in. I offer the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds the caveat, which I know he will accept,
that of course the forms must contain a certain amount of legalese.
They will be stipulated by regulations and must thereforeset
out the legal rights and responsibilities. Notwithstanding that, there
is unanimity that we can find a better way to simplify communication.
There is a difficult balancing act to be performed, but it is important
that we convey as sensitively as possible the responsibilities and
sanctions that there will be if the activity requirement is not adhered
to. We therefore have absolute unanimity on the point made by the hon.
Gentleman. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause 11
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 12Work-related
activity Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD): I beg to move amendment No. 194, in
page 10, line 41, after
‘regulations’,
insert— ‘(aa) prescribing
circumstances in which such a person is not subject to a requirement to
undertake work-related activity in accordance with
regulations;’. With
this amendment I seek to probe the Government’s intentions on
directions to carry out work-related activity. It would provide that
regulations could be made to prescribe circumstances in which such a
person as described in the clause is not subject to a requirement to
undertake such activity. The intention is to elicit more detail from
the Minister on the Government’s thinking about the
circumstances in which members of the work-related activity group, if
one could call them that, rather than of the support group, might not
be required to undertake such activity. An individual could be affected
by a range of circumstances to do with their impairment, disability or
health condition. That concern might particularly apply to those with
fluctuating conditions. It might well be possible for such people to
engage in work-related activity when their condition is less severe,
but as it fluctuates there may be periods when that is not possible.
Unless exceptions are described so that the conditionality on
work-related activity would not apply, someone in such circumstances
could be caught out by the conditionality regime. I am keen to hear
more from the Minister about how those issues would apply to such
cases.
It is also worth saying that the
clause and the Bill seek to make obligatory taking part in work-related
activity, as well as attending a work-related interview or a
work-focused health-related assessment—matters of responsibility
subject to reductions in benefit if not complied with. When we come to
later amendments, we will have a wider debate on what work-related
activity is and is not; that is not the subject of this amendment.
Owing to their
disability, impairment or health condition, there may well be people
for whom support or adjustments may be needed, to enable them to
undertake the work-related activity required of them. If such support
or adjustments cannot be provided for whatever reason, it may be
inappropriate to require that person to carry out work-related
activity. I hope that the Minister will agree and that the Government
do not intend to sanction someone’s benefit in such cases. I
look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Boswell: I shall speak briefly, Mr. Amess. If I
may say so, this probing amendment is well conceived. We need to know
something about this issue. The Government are undertaking a fairly
major step, although in pathways pilots they have done a little to
require work-related activity over and above the relatively easily
described and scoped work-related interview. A whole variety of
circumstances in which that might not be possible might
apply. I suppose that
unless we assume a grave deficiency in the local or national labour
market—we shall not go into that wider issue this
afternoon—it would normally be self-evident that somebody with
limited capacity for work who is not in work although there is work to
be had would need to move towards some work-related activity. That is
not objectionable in principle.
In our debate on the last
clause, the Minister flagged up the fact that we are trying to
emphasise that there is an approach of mutuality and partnership so
that officialdom works with the claimant to try to get them through.
All the surveys of disabled people show that that is what many of them
would like to do if they had the support. We need to scope what they
can do and what will get them closer to working. At this stage, at any
rate, nobody wishes to prescribe that there should be a penalty for not
working. I certainly do not, but there is clearly a need to prepare for
work. The explanatory
notes, which we sometimes criticise, are quite helpful on this issue.
They discuss work tasters, programmes to manage health and work, job
search assistance and programmes to assist in stabilising a
person’s life. The latter programme may be a little less clear
than the others but it is fairly clear, even from those short words,
roughly what the Minister is driving at. No doubt he will wish to
respond to the
amendment. In
conclusion, all I need say in support of the amendment is that we
clearly need to know more about what is intended and to have in mind at
all times the possible constraints on the ability to carry that
out—in particular when those constraints are not in the
claimant’s control. Take work tasters, which are analogous to
people going on work experience from their school or college. There may
be health and safety
considerations.
Arguably, those considerations
could be more intense if a person has been out of the labour market
because of some illness or disability and then wishes to go and try
something out, rather than take part in a settled arrangement in which
they are in a contract of employment, having succeeded in getting work.
Clearly, it is important that the matter of constraints is addressed,
and that there is such a reasonable opportunity.
The Minister may wish to say
something about the fact that, theoretically, it may be necessary to
provide access to work arrangements in order for a work-related
activity to take place, let alone the work
itself.
1.45
pm The hon. Member
for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has reinforced my inquiry
on that matter. The whole import of the clause is that people will not
have an easy transition from being limited in capacity to work and out
of work to getting into work. We all want to bridge that gap, but we
must do so in a reasonable way. Above all, we do not have to attach
blame to the individual who, for reasons that may be beyond their
control, is unable to make the transition. If there is a constraint, it
needs to be met by a waiver or appropriate action. Therefore, we ask
the Minister to explain what he has in mind and urge him not to be too
literal-minded. We want some indication of how such a delicate gap is
to be bridged, particularly at the point where there is an implied
threat of sanctions, which is an
innovation.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 27 October 2006 |