 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Welfare Reform |
Welfare Reform Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks †
attended the Committee Standing Committee ATuesday 31 October 2006(Morning)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]Welfare Reform BillClause 14Directions
about work-related
activity Question
proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe
Bill. 10.30
am Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Good morning, Mr.
Amess. It is a lovely morning and I think that we can make progress
today. However, as ever, it is important that we at least question some
of the small
print. When I see the
word “directions” in a Bill, instinctively I smell a
rat—if that is not an inappropriate thing to say—and at
least want to question Ministers about why they use that word. In the
spirit of making progress, I shall indulge the Committee with a brief
anecdote: as a Minister, I remember having to make final decisions on
whether schools should shut and saying to my private secretary,
“Stalin died in about 1952. Some 40 years have now
passed”—at that time—“and here I am, a
Conservative Under-Secretary, being required by fiat to strike out with
a pen the existence of a school”, albeit after a lot of
consultation. That
was merely the preliminary to a substantive point, which is that
Ministers and their officers and officials, as they know, need to act
in accordance with the principles of judicial review and in a
reasonable manner at all times. However, I am not saying that the
Secretary of State or his officials should have no powers to issue
directions in certain cases and, to be fair, the rationale for what is
envisaged is set out in the explanatory notes.
In effect, the clause provides
for the power to strike out a work-related activity if it is thought to
be inappropriate for a person’s circumstances. However, I
suspect that by the time that happened, relations between the personal
adviser and the claimant or customer would have deteriorated badly, if
the claimant had not been prepared to listen or were acting in
ill-faith—a matter that we explored earlier—and went
wild, as it were, or refused to do what was suggested. It is
appropriate that Ministers take a moment or two to explain to the
Committee the circumstances in which they envisage such a situation
arising. Will the
Under-Secretary explain the relationship between that and an action
plan? The purpose of the iterative process of interview is to establish
capacity for work and the employment allowance. If unable to work, the
person would attend a health assessment for
work-related activity and an action plan would be drawn up. It would be
useful if she could share with the Committee Ministers’ thinking
on how divergences might arise, be monitored and then acted on under
the terms of the
clause. I have some
other administrative points to raisewith the Under-Secretary.
First, I take it that the requirements would not apply to persons
receiving the support allowance. I think that that is clear in the text
because it is tied to clause 12, which I do not think applies to the
support allowance, but it would be useful if she could clarify that. My
second point is on the relationship with the payment of benefit. In
effect, any direction under the clause would be saying,
“Whatever the claimant is doing is not appropriate and does not
count”. In normal circumstances, we cannot order people to stop
what they are doing, but clearly the implied threat is the withdrawal
of benefit. I am not clear on whether that would kick in
retrospectively or only from the date of the notice.
Finally, in the spirit of my
opening remarks, it is fairly clear that if that set of circumstances
were to arise, relations already would have broken down. A formal
notice of a decision by an officer on behalf of the Secretary of State
would be a severe sanction in itself. It is quite important that if
that then jolts people back to a sensible path forward, there is
provision for advancing in a more constructive way. I presume that it
would be possible at that point to rewrite the action plan or for the
individual claimant to be able to make alternative proposals. I hope
that, in normal circumstances, those will be considered in good faith
and acted upon as soon as
possible. In
conclusion, we have no absolute opposition to the principle of the
provision; it may be necessary. It will, I suspect, be confined to a
small number of cases, but it is important that any action taken under
the clause is taken fairly. It should be properly documented and
accompanied by the necessary input from the personal adviser into
revising the action plan and involving the claimant in what they should
be doing, as opposed to what is deemed to be inappropriate. However,
the claimant should be able to make representations if they have not
already done so and should be treated fairly throughout the process. I
suspect that this can be done through regulations. Clearly it needs to
be and we look forward to the Under-Secretary’s
response. Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD): It is good to be in Committee again, Mr.
Amess. In the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry
(Mr. Boswell), I hope that we can make some progress today.
I certainly will be working to achieve that. I am sad to say that once
again, while the weather in London may be clement, the weather in the
highlands is rather inclement, as it has been over the weekend. I am
not sure whether that has much bearing on our proceedings, but I
thought that it was worth starting with that
observation. I shall
be brief. The clause gives Ministers the power to direct that certain
activity does not count as work-related activity. Presumably such a
direction would have to be issued retrospectively. In other words,
someone would be carrying out a certain activity and the personal
adviser would, for whatever reason, decide that it was not work
related.
Mr.
Boswell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in his
interpretation, although we must wait for the Under-Secretary’s
confirmation. One would hope that there was something of an iterative
process in which the personal adviser rang up and said, “Are you
sure that that is the right thing for you to be doing?” There
would then be something of a dialogue and this directive procedure
would be used very much as the last
resort.
Danny
Alexander: That is the burden of the point that I was
coming to. Clearly, the process of engagement that is set out in this
Bill involves work-focused interviews, action plans being drawn up and
a great deal of conversation and engagement with the claimant. The
circumstances in which a direction would have to be issued to an
individual—presumably such directions would be issued only in
individual cases rather than generically, stating that a certain class
of activity would not count as work-related activity—suggest
that the previous steps in the process, for whatever reason, had not
worked. There had been a breakdown in communication, a misunderstanding
or the personal adviser or the contracted-out organisation would simply
have chosen to issue such a direction. It would be helpful if the
Under-Secretary could set out in a wee bit more detail the
circumstances in which she foresees this power being
used. I would also
welcome clarification on what rightsthe claimant has in
response to such a direction. Presumably if someone has engaged in
something that they consider to be work-related activity, made it clear
to the officials that they regard it as work-related activity and are
then told that the Secretary of State does not consider it to be
work-related activity, they will have to do something else. In passing,
I note that it seems that the powers here in relation to directions are
quite different from the directions under the jobseeker’s
allowance. Under the jobseeker’s allowance, directions can be
made that the claimant must do something specific, whereas this
direction is only to say that they must not do something specific, or
if they do, it is not to count as work-related activity. I should be
grateful if the Under-Secretary could clarify
that. There is thus
the question about a claimant’s right of appeal or how they can
challenge such a decision. Presumably if a claimant has carried on in
good faith in the belief that such an activity is work-related, there
must be a process by which they can engage in a discussion about the
reasoning behind a decision notice being issued and the consequences of
it. I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s
response. Adam
Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I have three or four brief points
to raise with the Under-Secretary, which relate to the mandatory nature
of work-related activity. The notes on the Bill state that when
mandatory work-related activity is introduced, it will apply to most
claimants in the work-related activity group. I want reassurance that
we are not returning to the days of the workhouse when people were
instructed to undertake certain types of work-related activity. I would
be concerned about the state of mind of people in that position,
especially those in vulnerable groups who have mental health challenges
but who are not in the long-term support group.
My second concern is that the
requirements placed on claimants will be further developed in the light
of the pathways to work experience. Without the final report on that
programme, which I think will be published next year, how confident can
we be that the interim results will deliver the right types of new
requirements that will be suitable for people in the work-related
group? Thirdly, I seek
clarification on clause 14(3), which seems to allow the Secretary of
State to vary or revoke retrospectively a determination of what is a
work-related activity. I am always slightly wary of retrospective
directions or determinations and I hope that the Under-Secretary will
be able to reassure me in that respect or perhaps give an example of
why the clause is in the Bill.
Mr.
Boswell: My hon. Friend has healthy instincts about the
arbitrary exercise of powers by Ministers. Does he also agree that
officers or officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State also
need to be very competent in making those judgments and to seek the
advice of others, including medical specialists, before jumping to
conclusions?
Adam
Afriyie: My hon. Friend makes the point very well indeed
that if a retrospective decision is made and it concerns a
health-related matter, the experience and skill of the person making
that judgment, which may be outsourced to a third party, must be
considered very
closely. My final
query relates to the last line of the notes, which states that it is
envisaged that the proposal would be used only in very limited
circumstances where a given activity was wholly inappropriate to the
claimant. Could the Under-Secretary give an example from the existing
pathways to work pilots of what those very limited circumstances may
be, and what she would consider to be wholly inappropriate for the
claimant?
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire): I am pleased to be here
again on a Tuesday morning under your chairmanship, Mr.
Amess. I can reassure
hon. Members on all the points that they have raised in the debate. I
was fascinated to hear that when the hon. Member for Daventry was a
Minister, he immediately thought of Stalin; socialists tend not to
think of Stalin.
Mr.
Boswell: We could have a very interesting discussion
outside the Committee on the psychology of whether people really found
Stalin warm, caring and generally supportive. For the purposes of this
argument, I need to put on the record that being a Stalinist was not in
my view a term of approbation and certainly not for any Conservative
Minister of the Crown and, I dare say, not for any Labour Minister of
the Crown either, which is the point of my
remark. 10.45
am
Mrs.
McGuire: I am so glad I raised that point, so that we
heard that explanation. It was a fascinating image and it sits at odds
with the hon. Gentleman’s image, both in and outside this
Committee.
I hope I can give hon. Members
comfort on the points that they have raised because the clause permits
personal advisers to rule that certain kinds of activity do not count
as work-related activity in circumstances that will be set out in the
regulations, when they are published. Those regulations will be subject
to a separate vote in the House.
May I give the hon. Member for
Windsor (Adam Afriyie) definite reassurance that we are not inventing
either the workhouse mentality or the ethic of the workhouse? We cannot
and will not direct a claimant to do a specific type of work-related
activity. It is about getting the right support in place for the
individual and, while I am sure Victorians may have thought they were
providing the right support for those who went to the workhouse, I am
sure many of us would agree that that was not the
case. I also reassure
the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny
Alexander) that it is not a generic instruction. It is not about taking
out of the equation a whole range of activities. It is very
specifically related to an individual. I will come to some of the
circumstances in order to give an indication of the sort of examples we
think the clause may need to cope with.
We do not anticipate that the
provision will be widely used or widely needed. As my hon. Friend the
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform and I have indicated
throughout the Committee proceedings, and has been accepted by the
Committee, we are seeking to take a collaborative and consensual
approach with the claimant. We have proved through our pathways
approach that by working with people we get more out of them in terms
of the support they are willing not just to accept but to relate to. I
think that that is very important.
The hon. Members for Windsor
and for Daventry raised the issue of retrospection. I can confirm that
subsection (3) of the clause enables a direction to be revoked or
changed so that an activity that was designated as not being a
work-related activity can subsequently be so designated. It is a
positive subsection that is designed to recognise that work-related
activity will be part of the action plan that will be agreed between
the personal adviser and the customer. It may well be, however, that
the customer does something outside the action plan that meets the
requirement. It would be unfair to not give the credit for that
work-related activity. The direction is
separate. Under what
circumstances can the power be used? As I have said, we anticipate that
the use of directions in practice will be rare. To give an example, a
graduate in English may decide that a work-related requirement could be
a basic English skills course. That would be totally inappropriate for
someone with that level of qualification. It would perhaps have more to
do with attempting to tick a box than to embrace work-related activity.
Somebody may decide that they want to become a personal trainer. Again,
given the individual circumstances, their qualifications and so on,
that may not be appropriate and may be a recreational view of
work-related activity. This is what I mean when I say that it is very
specific to the individual and it is not about excluding all sorts of
activity. I also confirm to
the hon. Member for Daventry that clause 14 will not apply to the
support group and I am pleased to put that on the
record. Many interim
reports have been published on the pathways evaluation. We are learning
all the time about pathways, but the predominant message we get from
them is that if we work with individuals as individuals, we get a
greater response rate, which means getting more people into work. The
pathways approach may require some tweaking as the evaluations are
produced, but it is recognised as an individual-focused support for
people who are long-term unemployed or who may never have been employed
at all.
Mr.
Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): We all agree that
there are circumstances in which the work-related activity programme
needs to be varied, but I do not understand why it cannot be varied
under the regulations in clause 12(1). Will the Under-Secretary provide
specific examples of situations in which work-related activity could
not be varied under clause 12, thus making clause 14
necessary?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 1 November 2006 |