Mr.
Murphy: I suspect the answer to my question is no. The
hon. Gentleman has therefore come to the same conclusion as the
Government, so I am glad that he apparently agrees with
us. These discussions
are about the formulation of the powers that we take. Two of the most
readily used alternative sanctions are the two that the hon. Member for
Daventry fairly identified. As I sought to explain to the Committee, we
do not think that those would be appropriate in the context. There is a
general acceptance that in almost all, if not all, circumstances
withdrawing a driving licence would not be appropriate. In terms of the
profile, withdrawal of passports from customers on ESA and IB would not
be appropriate either. At that point, we settle on a sanction as a last
resort on the basis that significant safeguards are outlined on page 6
of our draft
regulations.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for his
reassurance and I agree with the points that he has made about some of
those other sanctions. He may have been about to come to the point that
I raised earlier. It concerned the evidence base for suggesting that
the sort of sanctions that the Government are taking powers for in the
Bill are efficacious, or is it more a matter of
principle?
Mr.
Murphy: I shall shortly conclude my remarks on the
amendments, because I am now answering a question for a second time.
The response that I have already given is that we have pilot sanctions
in pathways, and we will analyse their effectiveness and publish our
conclusions. We will take the lessons of that into the draft
regulations on how sanctions will work in relation to work-related
activity. We will consult on that and, of course, Parliament will hold
the regulations to account through the appropriate channels and
mechanisms and consider whether they represent the right thing to
do.
Kali
Mountford: I am becoming quite frustrated by this debate.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister re-examine closely the safeguards
needed? Is it not a fact that the process is also important? A person
might be afraid of attending an interview or have had past experience
that makes them feel that something of which they are fearful might
happen. The visits and conversations that will take place before any
sanctions are imposed might enable someone to take an opportunity that
they would otherwise not avail themselves
of.
Mr.
Murphy: Again, my hon. Friend speaks from her experience
of dealing with her constituents. She continues to campaign and brings
that practical experience to the Committee’s attention. Her
point is made clearly on page 6 of the draft regulations, through such
provisions as an offer
of “a more convenient
location or a home visit where appropriate...visiting those
customers with whom there has been no verbal contact”
before a work-focused interview and
encouraging an advocate to attend and support a customer at each
interaction. The tone and spirit of such protections
under clause 11 will be carried across and built on under clause 12 in
the regulations on which we will
consult. Sanctions
will be a last resort in a small number of cases in which a person does
not participate in work-related activity, which, as hon. Members know,
carries the broad definition contained in the Green Paper. It will
involve stabilising life and getting closer to the labour market.
Sanctions will apply if, without good cause—that also has a wide
definition—a person does not participate. They will have the
right of independent appeal against any sanction and, both in the
powers that we are taking in the Bill and in the tone of the draft
regulations, it is clear that sanctions are our last resort. The regime
will not be sanctions led; it will be about support. As a last resort,
the Government must have the opportunity to use sanctions as a way
finally to engage those who have not yet participated. From the
experience of pathways, we hope that 1 per cent will be the maximum
proportion of people involved as we roll out the sanctions. With that
reassurance, I encourage hon. Members not to press the
amendments.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I
sense that you, Mr. Amess, and the rest of the Committee
would like to make progress, and I do not intend to speak at length.
The only self-indulgence that I will bring to the party is to say that
last year, in my capacity as an ambassador for the National Forest, I
had the privilege of planting a number of new oak trees within sight of
Stanton Bridge, the exact point outside Derby where the Jacobite army
turned around in 1745. I was on the right side of that particular
conflict. I know that that is as far as I should
go. We were in a
slightly unusual position with the amendments, because as I spoke to
them I was conscious that I was probing both the Minister and my own
mind. It is a difficult matter. The Minister has endeavoured to reply,
but I would have been happy for him to take powers to introduce
sanctions other than purely financial ones, albeit with the safeguards
that he has properly set out. The Government do not often get from the
Opposition free offers of greater powers, but in this case he could
have banked that. I am surprised that he has not availed himself of the
opportunity. On the
whole I like to emphasis the positive in a Bill, but I might wish to
say a word on clause stand part. Given that we have rehearsed already
the lead amendment No. 238 and the need for adequate support for
claimants, I do not think that it is necessary to press it. The
Minister has declined the free offer and, in response, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. 3
pm
Mr.
Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 242, in
clause 12, page 11, line 40, at
end add— ‘(8) Regulations
under this section may make provision to ensure that the ability to
carry out “work related activity” is not automatically
treated as evidence that the claimant’s capability to work has
improved.’.
I shall be brief because we have
discussed the essential point here before, but the Committee needs to
remind itself of its importance. There is an inherent equivocation in
the personal capability assessment. Is it a pass or failure if the
claimant shows that they are not capable of work? It follows that many
people are equivocal and probably even more are worried that if they do
succeed, which is the objective, they will find themselves
“humbugged”—to use a Victorian phrase—by
losing their benefits.
The Minister said that that is
a separate process and would not be triggered by an ability to work.
Formally, that is the case. However, just because he has said it once
does not mean that it is not appropriate to ask him to say it again or
for us to remind him that it really matters to the claimants. The last
thing any of us want is for people to go bravely through a rather
difficult process and make progress, only to discover that they are
worse off than they intended or deserve. I hope that that does not
happen. I emphasise
not only the facts of the matter, but the word on the street and
people’s concern that success in the assessment itself might
lead to sanctions, which might cause them not to do the sensible thing
and therefore lead them into a sanction regime—returning to our
earlier discussion. They would have chosen the route of failure, which
would be in nobody’s interest.
Mr.
Hunt: I shall briefly support my hon. Friend’s
comments. There is widespread concern among a number of out-of-work
disabled people that any involvement in the world of work could trigger
a reassessment of their disability status—if I can put it that
way. That could in turn threaten their benefits package, which is
incredibly important to their independence.
I know that that is not what
the Government intend, but mistakes happen. Citizens Advice reported an
occurrence in north Wales where a higher-rate disability living
allowance claimant lost his wife, after which he started to work for
seven and a half hours a week. He was incorrectly advised by his local
benefits office that he could not do that work and claim benefits at
the same time. Clearly, that was a mistake. Those things happen. One
purpose of the amendment is to provide reassurance to people that
involving themselves in work-related activity will not lead to a
reassessment of their limited capability to work.
In conclusion, I remind the
Minister of a recent Capability Scotland survey of unemployed disabled
people. It found that the reason half of them did not want to involve
themselves in the world of work was their fear of losing their benefits
package. The amendment might help to assuage those fears. I look
forward to any reassurance that the Minister might be able to
give.
Mr.
Murphy: I shall seek to respond quickly; I know that some
people, including my the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household,
my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr.
Heppell), are becoming impatient because we have not made as much
progress as was initially anticipated.
The point made by the hon.
Member for Daventry about the importance of language harks back to a
previous debate. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the
Member for Stirling, reminded me that previously, when someone
undertook a PCA in respect of an IB claim, the communication said,
“Dear Mrs. Jones, this is to confirm that you passed
the PCA.” What is passing or failing a PCA? If someone passed
the PCA, they were entitled to incapacity benefit. It is that sense of
language. I say to the
hon. Gentleman that undertaking permitted work will not in itself
trigger a change in benefit entitlement. A change of condition will
lead to a change in consideration of someone’s entitlement to
benefit. That change of condition would not be analysed on the basis of
what the person was now doing under permitted work rules but on a new
PCA, the process of which we discussed in our earlier clauses, based on
the 15 points and 46 descriptors. That will be the sole basis for the
judgment whether someone remains entitled to ESA, contrary to the quite
reasonable concerns that some people in this country beyond the
Committee might have. It is important to emphasise that, which is why I
am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to confirm that
to the Committee and therefore
others.
Mr.
Boswell: I think that we are almost there. We needed that
reassurance. It is important, but I must hammer it home to the Minister
that language matters a lot. The more user-friendly and positive it can
be, the better. There will be plenty of people to rubbish it, but we
should start with the positive.
There might be some
concerns—I picked them up informally in discussion the other
day—about whether people could lose out on existing benefits:
for example, in the linking rules where they undertake work. Perhaps at
the moment—I am using oldspeak—if they have higher rate
incapacity benefit, they might come back in at a lower rate. Beyond the
Minister’s assurance, which of course I accept as he has given
it, is the need to check whether perverse incentives still buried in
some of the arrangements’ small print, like the one that I
mentioned, could mean that people undertaking work-related
activity—although he referred to permitted work, which is not
quite the same thing—might lose out in certain circumstances.
Nobody wants that. The more sensitive we are to it, the more likely we
are to avoid it. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman: Before we come to the expected debate on clause 12 stand
part, I remind the Committee that we have had a fairly wide debate
already. I am perfectly happy for Members to make their contributions
if they try to stick to matters that have not already been
discussed.
Natascha
Engel: I wish to make a general point about clause 12,
which I think is the most important clause in the Bill. I draw the
Committee’s attention to the explanatory notes, which define
work-related activity as
“undertaking activity that
increases the likelihood of getting a job. This may include activities
such as work trials or training”.
It is the training aspect of work-related
activity that I would like to talk about. The training and skills part
of the Bill is absolutely fundamental to its
success. It is also
important to note that we are discussing the Bill’s detail at
the same time as Sandy Leitch is carrying out a general review of
skills, examining the matter with a cross-departmental approach. I do
not wantto pre-empt what he will say on skills, but I wish to
highlight the issue and to encourage the Minister to support a
cross-departmental effort involving the Department for Education and
Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade
and Industry and the Treasury in order to ensure that the skills aspect
is never
forgotten. The
Jobcentre Plus network was designed initially to be a one-stop shop for
everything related to being out of work. Jobcentre Plus would be the
first to admit that it does not really consider skills and skills
training to be its core function, yet basic skills—I mean hard
skills such as literacy and numeracy—are one of the serious
issues facing the group of people that we hope to help with the
Bill. I would like to
introduce the Committee to Derbyshire Dave. Derbyshire Dave used to be
a miner in North-East Derbyshire. My constituency is actually not close
to Derby at all; it is much closer to Sheffield. We border South
Yorkshire. It is one of the coalfields constituencies, but it has a
large number of people who used to be steelworkers. Derbyshire Dave
could be an ex-miner or ex-steelworker who has lost his job and has
been on incapacity benefit for a while, but is keen to get involved in
pathways to work. Derbyshire Dave exists. He is so willing that he
walked into Jobcentre Plus to demand to be put on the scheme. That is
an important aspect in respect of our earlier debate; the people keen
to participate who come and ask to be put on pathways to work are the
issue, rather than the dragging of people into Jobcentre
Plus. Derbyshire
Dave, very keen to get a job, has taken part in all the condition
management programmes and retraining. The problem is that North-East
Derbyshire, like many other constituencies, is rural; Derbyshire Dave
is often not willing to do the kind of work available. In fact, he is
being offered work behind the checkout at Morrisons or Tesco; those are
the jobs we have in the constituency.
Derbyshire Dave is ready and
willing to work and keen to get involved in the labour market. However,
the jobs available are not suitable. What happens to him? He is in the
ESA group; he goes straight on to the jobseeker’s allowance and
all the support available through the personal advisers in the system
is withdrawn because he is now a straightforward jobseeker. If he were
to find a job, he would still for up to a year have all the in-work
support that would be available to anybody who goes on from pathways
into work. Derbyshire
Dave has serious issues and I am worried that in this legislation he
falls between two stools. This is a problem that affects rural areas.
The city strategy is fantastic and very important in bringing together
all the different agencies and employers and everybody else who is
willing to get people off incapacity benefit and into work. In rural
areas, however, we do not have the transport networks of cities, nor
their variety of jobs in geographical locations close by.
To address the issue, we have
launched a rural pilot similar to the city strategies. One of the ways
of doing that is to pull together all the different agencies to ensure
that we can identify the issues and overcome them locally ourselves.
Making sure that the local delivery is in place will be one of the most
important parts of the Bill and the clause; that is the only way in
which any of this can be
delivered. One of the
issues that we identified in our rural pilot was that nobody was
specifically responsible for mapping the local economy—the local
labour market now and of the future. For any Committee member who
drives up the M1 to their constituency, I should say that we are
between junctions 29 and 30. Weare about to have a huge
employment zone. In theshort term, that means construction
jobs; in the medium term, it means more construction jobs;
inthe long term, it means lots of different kinds of
businesses. Nobody in my constituency or the surrounding constituencies
is identifying the skills needs now, in the medium term and in the
future to make sure that the people on incapacity benefit in my
constituency are able to have the benefit of the jobs once they come
up. We are debating the Bill against the backdrop of the eight
accession
countries.
| 
