Mr.
Murphy: I shall try to make my response relatively brief,
on the basis that, in spirit, this is a probing amendment.
On numerous occasions we have
talked about the entitlement to a support group being on the basis of a
revised personal capability assessment of 15 points, matching one of 46
descriptors. I shall go on to some of the specifics.
This is another example of a
speech excellently drafted by others, which my noble Friend Lord Hunt
of Kings Heath will have an opportunity to rehearse for the first time
when a Lords Committee considers the Bill. That may be the best thing
to do with some of our prepared speeches, to enable me to respond to
the specific points that have been raised.
On sanctions and how we will
roll out work-focused interviews, I am trying to take some of the
lessons from work-focused interviews and the relationship between the
personal adviser and the customer, and the relationship between
personal adviser, customer and sanctions regime. Many hon. Members will
be aware that pilot schemes are under way in seven parts of the UK,
exploring the relationship between conditionality and the sanctions
regime among existing incapacity benefit customers. We will learn of
the best experiences from that process before bringing that knowledge
forward into the draft regulations and guidance on how we implement
work-related activity.
I do not wish to stray on to
discussions that we have had on other amendments, so I shall try to
keep my
comments narrow. The hon. Member for Daventry referred to the
explanatory notes. The draft regulations state, very
specifically: “Claimants cannot be
forced to undertake a particular
activity.” That means
that we will not take the power to force a customer to undertake a
specific action. However, the customer should undertake activity that
takes them closer to the labour market over an agreed period, between
work-focused interviews. Without going back to the debate over clause
11(2) to (6), in normal circumstances interviews would be expected to
take place in a cycle of once in every four weeks. Inside that cycle, a
customer would be expected to undertake some work-related activity that
takes them closer to the labour market in that
period.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful that the Minister is helping to
advance our knowledge of this matter. Can he confirm that the
work-related activity to which he referred, even if it is not specified
that “thou shalt do x or y”, would nevertheless have to
be agreed as part of the action plan? There would have to be an
understanding by Jobcentre Plus or the contractor that an activity was
regarded as appropriate. We will come to that when we debate a later
clause. However, it is not an unconditional licence to do something
just because the claimant would like to do
it.
Mr.
Murphy: We will discuss action plans when we consider the
next clause, so I shall not go into great detail. I think that there is
some confusion about the nature of the plans, which is entirely
understandable. When we come to the next clause, some clarification can
be provided on the interaction between work-focused interviews,
sanctions, work-related activity, work-focused health-related
assessment and action plans. I can reassure Opposition Members, as well
as my hon. Friends, about the relationships between those
elements. As hon.
Members have said, the explanatory notes provide a list of activities
that would be considered work-related. It is not an exhaustive list.
The following broad headings are given in the paperwork: work tasters;
managing health and work; improving employability; job search
assistance—not compelling a job search, but providing
assistance—and, importantly, stabilising life. Under those
headings there are additional, specific examples of work-related
activity. As a general understanding, the tone of the draft regulations
is that a work-related activity would take the customer closer to the
labour market. That would be the saloon bar
description. I can
reassure the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
about the specifics of protections. I accept that his is a probing
amendment. Perhaps, Mr. Amess, you will allow me to give a
general reassurance on this occasion, so that when we move to other
clauses, hon. Members will accept that it has been given.
As to protecting customers,
clause 11 identifies sanctions or safeguards that also feature on page
6 of the draft regulations. Broadly speaking, such
safeguards would apply in relation to what we have
described as “good cause”, including work-focused
interviews and so on. Such matters are dealt with in the draft
regulations and clause 12. I hope that that reassures Opposition
Members. In addition, there will be a right of appeal, as with all
financial sanctions. With that broad reassurance on
a number of matters relating to a variety of amendments to the clause,
I hope that I have encouraged the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his probing amendment. I also hope
that other Opposition Members who have tabled amendments will be
reassured by my comments as we discuss future
amendments.
Danny
Alexander: I am, broadly speaking, reassured, although I
reserve the right to raise similar issues in relation to future
clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 203, in
clause 12, page 11, line 18, at
end insert— ‘(j) for
notifying a person not subject to a requirement to undertake
work-related activity of opportunities to participate in work-related
activity on a voluntary
basis.’. The
purpose of the amendment is to elicit a bit more information from the
Minister. I would like to probe the Government’s thinking in
relation to the provision of information about work-related activity to
people who are not required under clause 12 to undertake such activity.
This is a similar point to that which was made during previous sittings
about the support group, although I suggest that this amendment is free
of some of the more contentious items that caused the debate in the
previous sitting. The
amendment seeks merely to provide a power to make regulations to ensure
that people who are not required to undertake work-related activity,
which in this case means members of the support group, are none the
less provided with information about what is available. I should like
to hear a bit more in the Minister’s response about what
proposals the Government have in mind to ensure that that happens. It
may apply not only to work-related activity but to work-focused
interviews and work-focused health-related assessments, and the
assistance that is generally available under the pathways to work
scheme, for example. How, if at all, do the Government intend to ensure
that people who are not required to take part in such activities are no
less informed about the opportunities that may be available to them? I
assume that there is an answer to that question. To take on board the
point that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) made in
our previous sitting, it should be done in a non-threatening way that
does not seek to create any feelings of obligation, but
that—importantly—provides information to people so that
they are aware of the opportunities and of the range of entitlements
available through pathways to work, which could help them get closer to
the labour market if they so wished.
I shall not dwell on what is a
straightforward amendment. The point that I am making is clear. I hope
that the Minister can reassure me that the Government have clear plans
and proposals to ensure the undertaking of such a
function.
Mr.
Boswell: It is proper that we raise these issues and that
the Minister should respond to them. I think that he will now be aware
of the interest—on the Opposition Benches and all
Benches—in the opportunities for members of the support group,
as much as for those who are on the employment and support allowance
and who are under obligations. I realise that, in a sense, anyone who
is involved in the support group in any work-related activity that they
do is ipso facto a member of the voluntary sector. That sector has not
so far featured as much as it might have done in our discussions. It
may well provide a useful route into work. Referring to our earlier
debate, what we discussed could be seen as an example of work-related
activity. That would apply equally to those who are subject to an
obligation and those who are not.
We all understand that people
do not go automatically in one stage from a situation of restriction
and limited capacity all the way through to work, but the transition
should be made as easy as possible for everyone, and in particular for
the various classes available in the ESA. There is an interesting
logical point on which I shall briefly dwell. If people are subject to
a legal obligation to engage in activities, can they be said in that
sense to be in the voluntary sector at all, even if they are working in
the voluntary sector as part of the work taster? That is perhaps for
the philosophers and not for the Committee today,
however. We want
things to be as inclusive and practical as possible. It would be unwise
for me to expand further on the necessary support, but above all we
want Ministers to remember the point and respond to
it.
Mr.
Murphy: I hope that I can reassure hon. Members about the
Government’s intentions, and encourage the hon. Member for
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his amendment. I
shall start with an admission. I may inadvertently have misled the
Committee in relation to what would be work-related activity in draft
regulations. As you are aware, Mr. Amess, that was contained
in the Green Paper, and I was surprised that you did not invite me to
be called to order, as you have on at least one previous occasion. I am
surprised that others did not intervene, but I hope that I have
clarified the position.
With that admission of error, I
shall try to proceed on steadier footing in relation to the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, which was amplified
by the comments and reflections of the hon. Member for Daventry. On a
voluntary basis, and where appropriate—we have discussed
previously the appropriateness of the state allowing
matters—someone in the support group should have access to
work-focused interviews and the support available to other customers.
That approach is exemplified by pathways, in which many in the exempt
category volunteer for the available support. That will therefore be
retained. 2
pm The hon.
Member for Daventry is absolutely right about voluntary work being the
appropriate route for some or many ESA customers wanting to get closer
to the labour market, and therefore it will be deemed to be
work-related activity. I, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and many
others know from constituency experience that a great number of
voluntary organisations provide a fantastic level of support to people
coming off inactive benefits in order to get them closer to the labour
market. The experience in pathways in many cases has been that
voluntary organisations have taken inspirational steps to involve those
who have been out of the labour market for a very long time. We expect
that to continue and will discuss with voluntary sector organisations,
charities and many others details such as the capacity in the voluntary
sector to support a substantial number of new
volunteers. On the
specific requirement to provide information, the hon. Member for
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey will be relieved to have it
confirmed that the questionnaire accompanying invitations to tender for
provider-led pathways to work provision asked providers to detail how
they would ensure consistent delivery to mandatory and voluntary
customers. Their bids will be assessed on their replies to that and
other questions. I hope that that reassures him. It is a key part of
the invitation to tender and unless providers are able to provide that
analysis, they would not be able to offer the kind of contracts that we
are looking for. I do
not think that it would be appropriate to put information provision in
the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander: I do not know whether Minister intends to cover
this point, but he has provided some reassurance on the contracts in
the provider-led areas. However, my understanding is that they will
cover60 per cent. of the country only, so 40 per cent. will be
Jobcentre Plus-led pathways to work areas. How does he intend to ensure
that a requirement similar to that stipulated in the contract of
provider-led areas is carried out equally well in the Jobcentre
Plus-led
areas?
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises a reasonable point. That
requirement operates already in the Jobcentre Plus-led pathways, which
cover 40 per cent. of the country. As I said earlier, many of those in
the exempt categories under the current and outdated personal
capability assessment process nevertheless say, “I wish to
volunteer.” I am sure that that can be improved further as part
of the continuing improvement in communication, which we talked about
earlier, but I am certain that that communication exists and, with the
existing pathways process, is one of the avenues by which current
exempt customers on IB can volunteer. I am not saying, on behalf of the
Government, that we cannot make further improvements and we shall
continue to seek ways in which to do so. With that, I encourage and
implore the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Danny
Alexander: Duly implored, I add only, before responding to
the Minister’s imploring, that he might find that Members of
Parliament, in dealing with constituents on such matters, are
interested in being engaged in the process of ensuring improved and
direct communication. With that comment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 238, in
clause 12, page 11, line 18, at
end add— ‘(j) prescribing
the support which is to be provided to a person in order to help him to
undertake work-related
activity.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 239, in
clause 12, page 11, line 20, leave
out ‘is’ and insert ‘may
be’. No. 240,
in
clause 12, page 11, line 22, at
end insert ‘or such
other appropriate action as the Secretary of State may by regulation
prescribe.’. No.
241, in
clause 12, page 11, line 27, at
end insert— ‘(d) what other
action may be taken to encourage the claimant back into
work.’.
Mr.
Boswell: The amendments do not make the same point, but
complement each other and help to probe the Government’s views
on the regulations that will enact these rather sensitive provisions.
AmendmentNo. 238 is perhaps the most straightforward because
it suggests simply that the regulations should
prescribe “the support
which is to be provided to a person in order to help him to undertake
work-related
activity”. I am
conscious that this point might be turning into a King Charles’s
head. Every time I get up to speak, I say that there will need to be
support. If I flag in my task, I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for
South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) or, indeed, the hon. Member for
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey would get up to make my point
for me. We need to keep saying again and again: it is not reasonable
for people to go without support from one state to another. They need
the appropriate support to get there.
The amendment says no more than
that, but perhaps the Minister could reflect on one or two things.
First, when I revisited the wording of the amendment, an analogy came
to my mind which has not been shared with the Committee before. This is
not dissimilar from what is required in an educational statement. A
statement of special educational needs does not simply diagnose a
child’s condition; it lists the support that the public
authority will need to provide. I throw that in because it is the kind
of thing that is in our minds. If there has been a work-focused
interview, it might be sensible for such a provision to be embodied in
the minutes and an undertaking
given. Beyond that, I
have two points to put to the Minister. The first relates to education.
Many of the people who have problems returning to work may be either
educationally disadvantaged or educationally demoralised. They may
need, in parallel with the pathways programme, to have access to
educational programmes to support them and make them employable. I am
not clear whether that comes under this rubric and whether that would
be regarded as work-related activity. It is educational and the
Minister hardly needs me to remind him that there is an important
distinction running through a lot of social security law between
participating in educational activity and a benefit-qualifying
activity. We perhaps should be clearer what the relationship is and who
will
“prescribe” the necessary education and/or see that is
carried out to an acceptable
level. My second point
relates to health specification. Again, all members of the Committee
will know that many people within the allowance will have personal
health problems, including those of a less glamorous nature such as
addiction to drugs or alcohol. They will need to get themselves sorted
out before they can be easily and safely employable. While I am aware
from having seen the pathways project in Derbyshire that there is a
very constructive working relationship with the primary care trust
there, I am not certain exactly what the nature of the interface with
the customer is and whether health-related interventions would be on
the ticket or would be dealt with separately, bearing in mind that
there is an issue of propriety about this.
It is one thing to say to an
individual, “You have an alcoholism problem and in your own
interests it should be sorted out.” It is another to say,
“Your alcoholism problem is preventing you from being ready to
go to work and to come off benefit and we are going to remediate
that.” I am rehearsing some potential ethical problems and the
different solutions that might be required. The person’s GP may
be able to sort it out. Clearly it needs to be sorted out but we have
to be clear whether it is an intervention under the health service or
under the ESA and work-focused activity programme. There are delicacies
about this that could give rise to difficulties. I should like the
Minister to touch on those matters when he responds to amendment No.
238. Amendments Nos.
239 to 241 are about the nature of the sanctions regime. Generally
speaking the Committee has not set up any Aunt Sallies, which sometimes
happens. We are too grown up and frankly the subject is too serious.
However, in my view, there is not a huge population of people desperate
to avoid work at any cost—I notice that the hon. Member for
Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) is nodding with some enthusiasm. All the
evidence is that most people with a disability or other condition
limiting their ability to work would like to go back to work given the
opportunity and encouragement to do so. That is the Committee’s
philosophy and is not in any way
contentious. The
Minister will remind us rightly, however, that we need an element of
sanction for the minority that will not play the game. Let us consider
the historical evidence from sanctions programmes. I have spoken at
little debates on sanctions and questioned, without wanting to sound
like a far-left caricature, whether they work or are necessary. In a
sense, it is rather like dealing with one’s own children: if it
is necessary to take the sanctions, the sanctions have failed. It is
the threat of sanctions that underpins the process, not their
actuality. The
amendments address the surprising fact that the Government might be
one-club golfers—to borrow a phrase used to describe
somebody’s economic policy, although we had best not go too far
down that road. They have only financial sanctions. They have the
ability to reduce benefits and it might be worth at least taking other
powers, although I am not saying that they should use those all the
time. We are offering Ministers a free gift here: they might consider a
wider range of sanctions—more clubs in the golf bag.
The Minister might seek to
question me, but I do not have a ready-made list of sanctions.
Sometimes, Ministers come along with such lists: shall we take away
their driving licence, their passport or whatever? I am not canvassing
for that, but recording my surprise that he is going simply for the
financial sanction and is not at the moment prepared to look at a range
of potential ones that might be appropriate in particular cases, or
become appropriate at some
stage. Mr.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Forgive me, I am slightly
confused. The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a case for other
sanctions, but he is very reluctant to give any examples of what they
might be.
| 
