Danny
Alexander: I am still a bit confused by the
Minister’s position. He has set out clear and precise ideas
about how the power in the clause will work in practice, but he seems
unwilling to tell the Committee anything about the circumstances in
which he might seek to use it, which seems odd. Perhaps I am
misunderstanding him, or maybe there is more to the matter than meets
the eye. Will he tell us more about his intentions? Under what
circumstances will Ministers seek to give the private and voluntary
sector the power to make decisions about whether someone’s
benefit should be
sanctioned?
Mr.
Murphy: I have already set out the conditions. They are
when the ESA is introduced, pathways are introduced nationally and the
delivery is successfully embedded, the capacities of the private and
voluntary sectors evolve, and after consultation with Parliament,
stakeholders and the relevant Select Committees. The conditions are
based not on a customer’s medical ailment, but on the successful
roll-out of pathways.
The hon. Member for Daventry
raised concerns about the protections. If the location of the decision
maker were changed, all protections allowed or enabled under Jobcentre
Plus would be in place, including appeals to the social security
appeals tribunal, and in some cases, to the social security
commissioners. Clause
15 will not be able to apply the functions under clauses 8 and 9. We
would consider changing the location of the benefit-entitlement
decision maker on the basis of, for example, whether there was
adherence to and attendance at work-focused interviews, whether there
was good cause for non-attendance and whether someone had fulfilled his
or her responsibility in respect of work-related activity.
It is important to retain the
power in the Bill for future introduction as welfare provision evolves
throughout the country, and as pathways and ESA are successfully
implemented. From Opposition Members’ comments and from the
nature of our debate today, before introduction, we are aware that we
would need to conduct detailed conversation with the private and
voluntary sector organisations. Some welcome it: Shaw Trust and Working
Links have confirmed that they would be interested in having such
responsibility. However, we would need to take part in detailed
conversations about contracts and protections as the provisions are
introduced. It is important to include the power in the Bill, so that
it can be introduced if appropriate in the
future.
John
Penrose: We got there in the end. I think I heard the
Minister say that he expects—in the future, not
immediately—to contract out the decision-making function to
third parties, be they private or third sector organisations, with the
strict proviso that there is a clear distinction between the personal
adviser role and the decision maker role, and that he intends, in
consultation with all stakeholders, to build a high Chinese wall
between those functions. That is vital. Now that that is clear, the
debate has been revealing, and I am sure that everybody listening will
want to return to it.
Adam
Afriyie: Paragraph (b) represents a large power-grab. Does
my hon. Friend agree that even if it were agreed to in Committee, the
Lords would identify it as a significant provision whose powers needed
to be curtailed?
John
Penrose: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Everybody
listening to the debate, in another place and among the public, will
want to return to the issue in detail. We will happily withdraw the
amendment, but this is a topic that will run and run. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in
clause 15, page 13, line 33, after
‘relates’,
insert— ‘(d) shall be
subject to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
(c.50) and the Human Rights Act
1998(c.42)’. I
am not sure that I have much time on this one. Many of its points were
addressed in the previous debate, but I wish to raise a couple of
points in relation to the Human Rights Act and the Disability
Discrimination Act.
It being One o’clock,
The Chairman adjourned the Committee
without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at
Four
o’clock.
| 
