Mr.
Ruffley: I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend
has shared a heart-warming and positive story from Tunbridge Wells.
Does he recognise the statistic about tight labour markets? The Shaw
Trust, among others, has suggested to me that the employment rate of
disabled people in Berkshire could be eight or 10 times higher than the
employment rate of disabled people in Bridgend. We must understand that
and develop policies to deal with
it.
Mr.
Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it
underlines my point. One of the most important outcomes of the Bill,
the general direction of which the whole Committee supports, must be
the stepping up of involvement with employers. With the pathways to
work pilots, we have the mechanism to make it happen. However, there
are practical requirements of employers, which is where the amendment
has some value. Employers are obliged to make reasonable adjustments
through the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, but a reasonable
adjustment will vary depending on the disability of the person seeking
employment. The personal adviser will be aware of the disability and
what the reasonable adjustment should be.
The amendment would clarify
what employers were expected to do, as they form part of the bargain.
Under the 2005 Act, the provision would become part of the action plan
and a helpful part of the process. On that basis, I look forward to the
Minister’s
comments.
Mr.
Murphy: I am happy to respond to the points that the
amendment raises. Hon. Members are right to say that there are
inspirational examples throughout the country, and they have referred
to a couple of them. I, like many on the Committee, have had the
opportunity to listen to people in my constituency and elsewhere
describe how they have been helped by employers who have provided
leadership and inspiration.
John
Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I have listened to
the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, and he has taken some matters
out of context. I think I know a little bit about BT, seeing as I
worked for the company for 31
years.
Mr.
Murphy: You were employed by
them.
John
Robertson: That might be nearer the mark. BT has always
employed people with disabilities, and it has always sought to help
those people who become disabled during their employment.
Will my hon. Friend the
Minister allay my fears about the figures we have discussed? Employment
is rising all the time, and that is one reason why we are considering
such people for employment. The issue has nothing to do with
unemployment, because more people are employed now than at any time in
the history of employment figures.
Mr.
Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are now
more people in work, and before the hon. Member for South-West Surrey
intervenes, I do not seek to make a wider point. For the first time in
our history, there are 29.02 million people in employment. For the
first time since records began, the UK has more than 29 million people
in work. Before the hon. Gentleman says that that is because of
migrants, I shall point out that migrants make up less than 1 per cent.
of our labour force. The big increase during the past year has been in
the employment of people over 50 years old. As my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary said, there are 200,000 more people over 50 in work
today than there were on this date one year ago. I believe that there
are about 609,000 current vacancies in the labour market, for jobs that
employers are trying to fill. In that context, we have the opportunity
to put in statute the kind of support that people who have been out of
the labour market for a considerable time are entitled to
expect. I do not have
the honour of representing the city of Glasgow—the city of my
hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John
Robertson)—because my constituency is just outside it. The
Silverburn centre is being built there—my old school was
bulldozed as a result—and the agreements that have been entered
into by employers are a model for what could happen in other parts of
the United Kingdom. A series of employers have entered into agreements
on the number of local people employed and on the number of people who
have a history of long-term unemployment coming off IB and other
benefits. If such agreements could be replicated throughout the
country, it would take us a long way towards what we are discussing
under the Bill. I turn
to the specific points that have been made. We have experience of
listening to IB customers who have been supported into and retained in
work because of the inspiration, far-sightedness and progressiveness of
employers. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey mentioned some, and my
hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West, who used to be a
manager at British Telecom for many years, cited his own company; I
know that he has declared an interest every time he has mentioned it
and its trade union.
We can discuss the nature of
the agreements contained in the clause in terms of action plans,
because there is a degree of misunderstanding about what they would
contain. The action plan is not a legal document, and the customer will
not be asked to sign it. It is simply a record of the conversation
between the individual, the personal adviser and the customer, and of
what the customer has agreed to undertake. The customer is under no
obligation, and we are not taking the power in the Bill to oblige a
customer to adhere to the content of an action plan.
I understand some of the
concerns, and I hope to allay them by virtue of these comments. Perhaps
that might impact on hon. Members’ attitudes to some of the
other amendments that have been tabled. The action plan is intended as
a route map back to work. No one will have to fulfil a specific
commitment contained in it. In fact, when it comes to an appeals
process, if that was appropriate in terms of sanctioning at a later
date, the customer would have to show that they had undertaken
work-related activity in the widest
sense, as outlined in the Green Paper, rather than that they had adhered
to the contents of the action plan. I hope that hon. Members have a
greater understanding and less confusion about the role of action plans
in the context of work-related activity, and that that impacts on their
attitudes to, and concerns about, an action
plan. The hon. Member
for Daventry spoke about the close and important relationship between
the personal adviser and the customer. The action plan is intended to
be issued at the end of the first work-focused interview, after eight
weeks. It can, of course, continue to be updated but, for the avoidance
of any doubt, I repeat that its contents are a record of the
conversation. They do not compel the customer to undertake a specific
activity or fulfil the content of that action plan. The onus on the
customer is to undertake work-related activity, the nature of which was
outlined in the Green Paper, as that would take them closer to the
labour market in between work-focused interviews. I hope that that
reassures hon. Members about the nature of the action
plan. In that context,
it would be inappropriate to try to place in an action plan a legal or
organisational responsibility on employers in a local environment with
which each customer would be expected to interact, because we are not
even putting into the action plan a specific responsibility with which
the customer has to interact. To put the type of responsibility on
employers that we are not even asking customers to undertake would be
wholly inappropriate in the context of these action
plans.
3.45 pm
Employer engagement is
absolutely crucial, which is why we take the opportunity to meet and to
listen to some of our major national and local employers to see what
more we can do to support them to ease the transition into work of
people who have been out of work for a considerable period. As we roll
out ESA, the return to work credit of £40 a week for 52 weeks
will ease the customer’s pathway back to work. We can always
look for ways of improving that pathway and easing the transition.
Extension of the linking rules to two years is a new and important way
of doing that. Even if
it were workable—there is a legitimate argument on whether it
would be workable—it is not necessary to designate in an action
plan, which is the note of a conversation between a customer and the
adviser about what could bring the customer closer to the labour
market. However, the customer has no legal responsibility to follow
that advice, so designation would probably be unworkable and is
certainly
unnecessary. To give
the Secretary of State the additional power to place requirements on
himself and external organisations that are carrying out his functions,
as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is
seeking to do in amendments Nos. 38 and 141, could mean requiring a
pathways to work provider to make available a specific type of training
to customers. That can be better done through the contracting system
and that is how we intend to deal with the specific point raised by the
hon.
Gentleman. Importantly,
the draft regulations on work-focused interviews, which have been
provided to the Committee,
set out the responsibilities of the customer during the interview and
they will be expected to participate fully. The Government already have
adequate powers in legislation to place requirements on employers. In
particular, the employment provisions in the Disability Discrimination
Act place duties on employers not to discriminate against disabled
people in recruitment and employment, and they must make reasonable
adjustments. Amendment
No. 38 would provide for regulations on the role of the customer in
determining the action plan and the right of appeal against it. The
action plan is best considered in the context of a route map. It is not
a legal agreement or a legal document in the sense that some hon.
Members have been concerned about and it is not appropriate to make it
subject to appeal for that reason. Instead, subsection (4) allows for
regulations to enable the customer to ask for the action plan to be
reconsidered. We intend to make regulations under that power when we
introduce the mandatory work-related activity to allow the customer to
request an alteration to the action plan if they feel that that is
appropriate. Not following the action plan is not a sanctionable
offence and the action plan cannot specify a course of activity in
relation to work-related activity. The amendments advocated by the hon.
Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey are therefore
unnecessary. Equally, it would not be appropriate in a conversation
between two individuals to place a requirement on another external
organisation—that is, an employer—that we do not even
expect one of the parties to the conversation to fulfil as part of the
action plan. With that
general reassurance about the nature of an action plan, I hope that
hon. Members will be encouraged to reflect, not to press the amendments
and to consider the importance of subsequent amendments on
conversations under clause
13.
Danny
Alexander: This short debate has been useful, not least
because of the opportunity to put on the record the importance that the
Government attach to working with employers. I think everyone in the
Committee attaches critical importance to that. There was almost
nothing in the Green Paper about that, so it is good that the
Minister’s comments have provided more information on the record
than was in the Green Paper. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Hunt: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in
clause 13, page 12, line 10, at
end insert ‘including,
in particular, circumstances where work-related activity cannot be
accessed by him for a reason related to his physical or mental
condition and circumstances where work-related activity is judged by a
health care professional approved by the Secretary of State to be
having a detrimental effect upon his physical or mental
condition.’. I
do not need to detain the Committee for very long. Briefly, the purpose
of the amendment is to reassure a number of external disability
organisations that it will
be possible to review and change action plans in a couple of specific
situations, the first being when the provision that is laid out for a
disabled person in an action plan is not accessible. There are concerns
that blind and partially sighted people, in particular, do not receive
adequate support in a number of employment programmes. Because of the
benefits sanction that sits behind the action plan, it is important
that such people should not be penalised where the provision is not
accessible. Secondly,
there are also concerns that it should be possible to change an action
plan if it is any way detrimental to the health, impairment or
disability of the person concerned. I am sure that it is possible to do
that, but the issue is a concern to a number of people. Part of those
concerns is legitimately created by the fact that some provision has
not always been adequate in some of the employment programmes that have
existed under the pilots. It would be most welcome if the Minister
could reassure the Committee on that
point.
Mr.
Murphy: May I start by repeating what I said in my earlier
contribution? It is important to avoid confusion and others not
understanding the full implications of what we say in this Committee. I
confirmed earlier that the action plan will not attract a sanction, and
the hon. Gentleman repeated that that was a
concern.
Mr.
Hunt indicated assent.
Mr.
Murphy: I see him nodding so he accepts what I say. On the
basis that action plans do not attract a sanction, I hope that the
concerns that outside organisations have expressed about the nature and
role of action plans, and about the relationship between action plans
and any sanction in an appeals regime is reduced. The action plan is a
route map. It sets out a type of activity that a customer could be
expected to undertake. It will not compel anyone to undertake any
specific activity, and as we roll out work-related activity, we will
take the power in subsection (4) to set out
“the circumstances in which
reconsideration may be requested”.
We shall, of course, consult on the
regulations before we bring them before the House. With those comments,
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hunt: I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance
on those points, particularly on where sanctions can and cannot be
applied. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Further consideration
adjourned.—[Mr.
Heppell.] Adjourned
accordingly at six minutes to Four o’clock till Tuesday 31
October at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
