Mrs.
McGuire: I hope that I can give my hon. Friend some
reassurance on his points. He is obviously right to raise the issue of
information on benefits and I am happy to say to him that the DWP
already provides a range of information on benefits and statutory
entitlements and on how to claim them. We do that through a range of
methods. Obviously, our website provides eligibility information. We
provide also a range of literature such as booklets and leaflets, which
are available to customers in many locations including advice agencies.
I shall come on to that soon. They are available in different formats
including in Braille.
Customers
can access advice by contacting their local office or Jobcentre Plus
direct or their benefit delivery centre. I do not know whether my hon.
Friend has been in to one recently, but the new Jobcentre Plus
facilities have direct access telephone lines at no cost to the
customer, and people can access the benefit delivery centre easily.
When notifying customers of benefit decisions, we also ensure that
there is information on a range of other benefits. Information on
employment and support allowance will be available at the first
interview under the new arrangements, so that people can make informed
choices. We must ensure that information is available at the right time
and in the right place.
I say to my hon. Friend that I
am not sure whether a statutory duty would add anything to the
requirement that we place on Jobcentre Plus to provide information to
those people who contact it. I assure him that my hon. Friend the
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, Ministers in Departments
such as the Department of Health and I meet Macmillan Cancer Support
and other charities that highlight the issue of benefits information.
We are working with them closely to consider how we improve access to
information.
Adam
Afriyie: I appreciate the comments on and intentions
towards ensuring that people with terminal illnesses receive
information. There is one group of people with terminal illnesses that
does not receive information; notification is not triggered by the
local authorities or by the Department for Work and Pensions. One of my
colleagues has raised the matter in the House. However, will the
Government introduce an amendment requiring that people with terminal
illnesses are notified of the benefits that they can receive? One or
two groups are not notified, and there is no requirement for them to be
notified.
Mrs.
McGuire: I do not want to go too far
down the track of other benefits. I am not sure of the benefits to
which the hon. Gentleman alludes; however, we work hard with the
Department of Health and with charities such as Macmillan to consider
ways in which information can be presented. That includes information
prescriptions, so that when a patient is given a terminal diagnosis,
they have information in front of them. It is a sensitive area, and
Macmillan and the Government realise that at the traumatic point in a
person’s life when they are given the diagnosis, they do not
want the next discussion with a doctor to be about their entitlement to
disability living allowance and attendance allowance. The matter must
be dealt with sensitively, and we must also appreciate that people may
not know that they have a terminal diagnosis. For many reasons, the
diagnosis may be withheld from them.
We constantly consider ways in
which we can make information available, through websites, citizens
advice bureaux, and advice agencies such as local authorities, social
services and carers organisations. We are not complacent. We recognise
that we must continue to ensure that we improve the ways in which
benefit advice, particularly disability-related benefits such as DLA
and AA, can be delivered. It will be at the forefront of our minds when
we consider the ESA and the first interviews at the beginning of the
process. In light of those reassurances, I hope that my hon. Friend
will withdraw his amendment.
John
Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for
her statement, but I have a couple of reservations. Having a bank of
information does not guarantee that it is getting out to the person who
needs it. As a result of that I ask what checks and balances can be put
in place to ensure that everything is above board and people can see
that questions are being asked properly. I fully take on board my hon.
Friend’s point that people who find out that they have a
terminal illness might not ask the right questions. I would expect
those dealing with such people to take their problems on
board. I reserve the
right, if I do not get answers to my questions, to return to the matter
on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
19, as amended, ordered to stand part of he
Bill. Clause 20
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
2 agreed
to.
Clause
21Interpretation
of Part
1 Amendment
made: No. 66, in clause 21, page 16,line 27, at end
insert— ‘“employment”
and “employed” have the meanings prescribed for the
purposes of this Part;”’.—[Mrs.
McGuire.] 8.45
pm
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 165, in
clause 21, page 17, line 9, leave
out from ‘beginning’ to end of line 11 and
insert ‘from the date of claim,
and (b) ending
with (i) determination of
eligibility for Employment and Support Allowance,
or (ii) such day as may be
prescribed up to a maximum of 91 days from the date of
claim, whichever is the
sooner.’.
I shall be brief, because I
know that we are trying to make some progress, as we just have. I think
that we have covered more clauses in two minutes than in the previous
two hours. It was an impressive piece of
work. The amendment is
intended to probe the Government’s thinking on the nature and
timing of the assessment phase for the employment and support
allowance. It sets out that that phase should end either on the date on
which eligibility for benefit is determined or after 13 weeks.
Ministers have made clear that the assessment phase should last 13
weeks. If entitlement for benefit is determined before the 13-week
phase is over, the entitlement should start on that date so a person
does not have to wait two or three weeks before receiving the full
benefit. That is a relatively simple but important point, not least to
those outside the House following our proceedings. I would be grateful
if the Under-Secretary would clarify the assessment phase and make it
clear that it will end after 13 weeks or on the date on which a
determination of benefit is made if, as we all hope, it happens more
quickly.
Mrs.
McGuire: The amendment, if I understand it correctly,
would have two main impacts. It would set the commencement of the
assessment phase at the point at which an individual makes a claim and
the end of that phase and the movement to the main phase at the point
at which the assessment process is complete, or 91 days after the claim
was made if the assessment is not finished. I believe that that is the
correct
understanding.
Danny
Alexander: That is
correct.
Mrs.
McGuire: Right. With the greatest of respect, to determine
the commencement of the assessment phase as the date of the claim would
not be sensible. Many customers seek to backdate their claims due to a
delay in contacting Jobcentre Plus that is no fault of their own.
Others seek to advance their claim dates on the basis that their
employer notified them of termination of contract some days down the
line. We propose, through regulations, to set the assessment phase of
the ESA as a 13-week period from the first day of entitlement. We have
based that length on the evidence from the pathways pilots, which
showed that 13 weeks is a realistic target for assessing the majority
of customers. We will aim to get the assessment for every individual
complete within the 13 weeks, but there might be instances where that
is not possible, perhaps because of a delay in the collection of
evidence or because a customer is unable to attend a medical
examination. Earlier we considered examples such as when a medical
examination has to be rescheduled because of illness or the one given,
if I remember rightly, by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) of
all 246 Atos doctors being on strike on a given day. I know that was
only an indicator, and that he used a somewhat flippant
example. We want to
ensure that customers do not lose out if the assessment phase has to be
extended for reasons such as I have described. Our proposals will also
ensure that benefit is not paid to those who are not entitled to it,
which would be a risk if everyone were automatically moved on to main
phase even if their assessment was not complete. I hope that
explanation will be accepted.
Danny
Alexander: The burden of the point on which I sought
clarification was fairly simple. If the assessment of entitlement to
the benefit—in other words, the decision that someone is
entitled to ESA—is made less than 13 weeks from the date at
which entitlement starts, does the assessment phase end at that
point?
Mrs.
McGuire: My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and
Welfare Reform clarified this in earlier debates. The first phase is 13
weeks and then the customer moves on to the next phase, depending on
what happens as a result of the processes during that phase. The
entitlement will not start until the end of the 13 weeks. I hope that
clarifies the point for the hon. Gentleman for the second time. I have
nearly reached the point of asking him to withdraw the
amendment.
Danny
Alexander: I thought I would intervene, rather than come
back with another speech for the Committee’s benefit. If the
assessment phase lasts13 weeks and someone’s decisions
are taken before that
period ends, is it correct that they do not start to receive the full
rate of benefit until the end of the assessment
phase?
Mrs.
McGuire: That is correct. There might be an opposite
position. For example, for reasons similar to those I have described,
someone might not get out of the assessment phase until 15 weeks have
passed, and if they qualify for the support allowance, it is backdated
to 13 weeks. So, 13 weeks is the threshold in respect of either having
entitlement or backdating. Principally on the point of fairness, we
could not have a situation where people could, for various reasons, be
out of the assessment phase and move into the new benefit at the end of
10 weeks while others might not get there until 15 weeks. We anticipate
that 13 weeks will be our cut-off point. In that context, I ask the
hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 162, in
clause 21, page 17, line 13, after
‘prescribed’, insert
‘, and such amounts as may be
prescribed’. I suspect
that it will just be me and the Under-Secretary discussing this for a
little while, but I shall try to keep the exchanges relatively brief.
The amendment seeks to probe the Government’s intentions on the
payments that will be made to people during the assessment phase of the
ESA. There is
particular concern about payments made to younger claimants during the
assessment phase. For example, there are younger age rates of
jobseeker’s allowance and there have been discussions about
lower rates being payable for younger claimants during the assessment
phase. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the younger age rates will
be payable during the assessment phase?
There is a further concern
about the availability of the disability premium. Part of the burden of
this legislation is to remove the disability premium. If it is no
longer payable during the assessment phase, will the Under-Secretary
explain how someone aged 16 or 17 will be identified as qualifying for
the higher rate of personal allowance? I shall talk a little longer to
allow the Minister to think about
that. It is clear that
the additional components will increase someone’s income above
the basic allowance and will be made earlier. Despite that, during the
first 13 weeks some people may experience a drop in income. The Green
Paper on welfare reform states that more than half of new claimants for
incapacity-related benefits are out of work immediately before their
claim and for some groups the level of payments may be above the basic
allowance. Can the Minister confirm that there will be circumstances
when some people, such as those receiving statutory sick pay and those
with a disability premium in previous benefits, will experience a drop
in income for the 13 weeks of the assessment phase because they were on
previous benefits and went on to the assessment phase, which is payable
at jobseeker’s allowance rate? They may qualify
for employment support allowance, at which point their benefit would
rise to the higher level. Have the Government given any thought to how
in such circumstances they will avoid fluctuations in income that might
otherwise apply to vulnerable
people? Mrs.
McGuire: I think I understand what the hon. Gentleman is
getting at. His point allows me to confirm that we will pay a
younger-age rate during the assessment phase, but we have responded to
consultations arising from the Green Paper that allowed us to indicate
that we would not differentiate on grounds of age during the main
phase. We are looking
at a whole new system that will be more responsive more quickly to
people than the current system. The 13-week threshold will mean that if
people meet the criteria, they will move on to a higher level of
benefit than they would currently in terms of the time scale.
Obviously, we have not set the rates—I do not know whether the
hon. Gentleman was trying to lever out an answer on that—but we
have responded to the consultations on the youth rate arising from the
Green Paper. I hope that he accepts my clarification and that he will
withdraw his
amendment.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful for that clarification, but the
Minister has not addressed my second point. People—not
necessarily young people, but perhaps adults who will be eligible for
the full rate of JSA—may previously have been on other benefits
before they made an application for employment support allowance. Those
other benefits would be higher than the rate that the Government
propose to pay during the assessment phase. Those people may be on a
higher rate to start with—one could list the range of
circumstances in which that would be possible—but go on to a
lower rate during the assessment phase, and when they qualify after the
13-week period of employment support allowance go on to a higher rate.
There would be a U-shaped curve or fluctuation in the level of benefit
received. Have the Government given any thought to how they might deal
with people in such circumstances to ensure that the fluctuation in
income that might take place does not cause unnecessary damage to
vulnerable
individuals?
| 
