Mrs.
McGuire: Our aim is to get people back into work as soon
as possible. Throughout the Bill’s progress, we have had good
discussions about when there can be occupational health interventions
for people who have long-term sicknesses, and about all the things that
will keep people at
work.
9
pm We are not
going to make assumptions about where somebody who moves off statutory
sick pay to the first phase of ESA will end up after the process of
assessment. As we have not set the rate, I am not prepared even to
start a discussion on the figures. However, moving from one benefit to
another is a decision that must be considered by the individual. I go
back to my earlier point: we are looking at a tightly programmed
assessment phase, so an individual will still be better off than under
the current system over a 52-week period.
I hope that I have answered the
hon. Gentleman’s questions. I am not sure that I have dealt with
the exact amounts, and all the rest of it, to his satisfaction.
However, if somebody moves off SSP on to the first phase of ESA, we
have made it clear that that will be at the jobseeker’s
allowance rate. That is the decision that people have to
make.
Danny
Alexander: The Under-Secretary has clarified the point. I
am not sure whether I am entirely satisfied with her answer, but the
issue can be debated further. The other place may well wish to take it
up; I shall not be the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that occasion. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
21, as amended, ordered to stand part ofthe
Bill.
Clause
22Regulations
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 196, in
clause 22, page 17, line 19, at
end insert ‘, subject to
an assessment of their impact on disability equality, which shall be
included in the report of the reporting authority under regulation 5 of
the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties)
Regulations
2005’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 163, in clause 22, page 18,line 3, at end
insert— ‘(8) Before making
regulations under sections 8 to 15 the Secretary of State shall consult
the Commission for Equality and Human
Rights.’.
Danny
Alexander: I shall be as brief as can be consistent with
making the intentions behind my amendments clear. Amendments Nos. 196
and 163 probe the clause on issues relating to the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 and the Human RightsAct 1998, which we
have discussed. We want to make the regulations subject to assessments
on their impact on disability equality and subject to consultation with
the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. As the Committee knows,
that will shortly take over the Disability Rights Commission and the
other equality organisations.
The thinking
behind the amendments is that because of the importance attached to the
public sector’s disability equality duty, to the 1998 Act and to
the functions currently carried out by the Disability Rights
Commission, it is important, given that the
regulations—particularly under clauses 10 to 14—introduce
a conditionality of benefits, that some mechanism should be in place.
Making assessments on impacts on disability equality and requiring
consultation with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights would
help to ensure that before any regulations were published or dealt
with, the commission could be satisfied that nothing proposed would in
any way undermine the relevant duties. That would allow a degree of
independent scrutiny, which would be welcome.
We have covered 1995 Act and the
assessment of disability equality on previous clauses, and I am happy
to leave it at that. I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Murphy: I am delighted to be back for the third time
today. I thank you, Mr. Hood, for the short break, which
gave us the opportunity to celebrate the arrival of baby Orla in the
appropriate way. It also gave me a chance to catch up with my
family’s plans for Halloween night. I can tell hon. Members that
I do not intend to trick them on anything, although I am certain that I
will not treat them in any way either. That is the best that I could
do.
Mr.
Ruffley: This is Jim Davidson
standard.
Mr.
Murphy: I do not know whether he is allowed in the new
Conservative
party.
Mr.
Brown: It would help if you took your mask off.
Mr.
Murphy: It might scare the children.
The hon. Member for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised a number of probing questions on
amendments Nos. 163 and 196. AmendmentNo. 163 would provide
the Commission for Equality and Human Rights with a formal role in
developing regulations. By general acknowledgment, the Government and
the Department for Work and Pensions are right to be proud of our work
on advancing the interests of disabled people and of our close working
relationship with key stakeholder groups, including the DRC, which we
created five or so years ago. Our extensive consultations on the
development of our proposals for the employment and support allowance
demonstrate our commitment in that regard, as does the fact that we
have produced a prototype disability equality impact assessment in
advance, importantly, of our statutory obligation to do so.
On the scrutiny of regulations,
the hon. Gentleman will be aware that existing provisions require the
Secretary of State to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee on
regulations made under relevant enactments. He will be happy to be
reminded that that is provided for in section 172 of the Social
Security Administration Act 1992. Importantly, we have added part 1 of
the Bill to the list of relevant enactments for such purposes. As the
recent review has shown, those arrangements have worked well, and I am
not convinced that adding a further layer of consultation of the sort
proposed in the amendment would aid the making of regulations. There
is, of course, the code of conduct for public and Government
consultations, which we will adhere to for future initiatives and
proposals. On the
principle behind the amendment, however, we are happy to confirm that
we will continue to confer with the Commission for Equality and Human
Rights. We have accepted that principle and demonstrated our continuing
commitment to adhere to it.
Danny
Alexander: The Minister rightly referred to the prototype
assessment on which the Department is working. What progress has been
made on it? When are we likely to see the fruits of that
process?
Mr.
Murphy: We are putting the final touches to the prototype.
We are under a statutory obligation to publish it and we certainly
intend to do that before we are obliged to do so, as a continuing sign
of our determination to work with stakeholders.
Amendment No. 196 is
unnecessary because it repeats what will be our statutory obligations
from December 2006 under the Disability Discrimination (Public
Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005. On that basis, the
issue is already covered by current law, so I think that the hon.
Gentleman will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.
I can confirm that the
Government will pursue the intention behind amendment No. 163 as we
continue to consult external organisations, including the ones that we
have just discussed.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that
reassuring response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
23Parliamentary
control
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 167, in
clause 23, page 18, line 8, leave
out ‘the
first’. The
amendment would amend the provision on parliamentary control. The Bill
states that affirmative resolutions of the House should apply only to
the first regulations under clause 12 on work-related activity and the
regulations on pilot projects under clause 18, and that all other
regulations should be subject to a negative resolution. The proposal
would delete “first” so that all regulations that relate
to work-related activity should be subject to an affirmative
resolution, but it is designed more broadly to probe the
Government’s intentions for parliamentary scrutiny in
general. If I am not
mistaken, clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14 will be of significant import. Not
only should all regulations under clause 12 be subject to an
affirmative resolution, but there is a good case for regulations made
under the other clauses also to be subject to an affirmative
resolution, as opposed to the negative resolution. I realise that such
matters are a fine point of parliamentary protocol, but none the less
there is a clear difference between the
two. The deletion of
“first” would make it clear that all such regulations
would have to subject to further parliamentary debate as opposed to
being only so subjected if a resolution were prayed against. Such
procedure would be more appropriate given the extent of the public
interest in the way in which regulations relating to matters that are
subjected to work-related
activity and, more broadly, conditionality should be considered. Given
my explanation of the amendment, I look forward to the
Minister’s
response. Mr.
Murphy: My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South
Perthshire (Gordon Banks) said earlier from a sedentary position that
it would be great if all our sittings took place in the evenings given
this rate of progress. Such timing certainly serves to concentrate the
mind in a way that no inducement from the Whips and the usual channels
has thus far been able to do. It is welcome and we should sit through
the witching hour. As
for the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey, the Bill currently provides for an affirmative
debate on the first set of regulations laid under clause 12. That is so
because the clause is new; clause 11 relates to pathways, so it is the
innovative nature of clause 12 that has been set aside to be subject to
a positive
resolution. It is not
sensible for a Government to take such action, but more importantly it
is not sensible for Parliament to seek an affirmative resolution in all
circumstances along the lines of the hon. Gentleman’s
suggestion. It is for Parliament to decide such matters through the
usual channels and elsewhere, but not to place in the Bill a
requirement to have an affirmative resolution on all changes to
regulations. For example, on page 26 of the draft regulations, we
outline what would be considered a good cause. We have said repeatedly
that the good cause list is not exhaustive and that it can be added to
through time, best practice and from learning what
works. 9.15
pm I understand
the intention, in terms of parliamentary protocol and control, behind
putting in primary legislation the requirement to have an affirmative
resolution for all changes in regulations, and it is an important
intention. However, the way in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to do
that is heavy-handed and unnecessary. I do not think that Parliament
would thank us for giving it the opportunity to have affirmative
resolutions on the change of good causes, work-focused interviews,
changing the specifics on notification requested for work-focused
interviews and all the things that have to evolve as we roll out the
pathways scheme through the private and voluntary sectors
nationally. Although
I understand the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I
hope that he accepts that—entirely unintentionally— it
would create what would border on unnecessary and excessive use of the
affirmative resolution procedure for often relatively minor changes in
regulations. They have to be left to the normal practice in terms of
how we change regulations to fit the evolution of delivery mechanisms.
I reassure him that we understand his concerns, but his mechanism to
deal with them is probably unworkable and I invite him to consider
withdrawing the amendment.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister
for that response for at least two reasons—perhaps three. First,
I am not sure that I have been described as heavy-handed before.
Secondly, one of the disappointments
in this Committee so far is that we have not heard from the hon. Member
for Ochil and South Perthshire—by virtue of his position, I
should add—so I am glad that his name will appear twice now in
the record of the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his
reassurance, and I know that all the Opposition parties will be
assiduous in scrutinising the draft regulations that are published in
order to seek debates on a negative resolution when we consider them to
be appropriate. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill. Clauses
24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
3Consequential
amendments relating to Part 1
Mrs.
McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
schedule 3, page 55, line 2, at
end insert— ‘Social Work
(Scotland) Act 1968 (c.
49)A1 In
section 78(2A) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (which exempts
persons in receipt of certain benefits from liability for contributions
in respect of children in care etc.), after “1995)”
insert “, an income-related allowance under Part 1 of the
Welfare Reform Act 2006 (employment and support
allowance)”.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 80 to 82, 84 to 109, 112 to 139, 72 to 74
and
76.
Mrs.
McGuire: We have set out in the schedule a number of
amendments to primary legislation that follow on from the creation of
the employment and support allowance. Since the Bill was introduced, we
have had the opportunity to identify a number of further amendments
which are necessary to ensure that the new benefit operates alongside
other benefits appropriately. For example, the amendments include
provisions to ensure that children in families that receive
income-related employment and support allowance will, in Scotland,
England and Wales, be entitled to free school meals just as families
that receive income support are. Other amendments will ensure that
recipients of income-related employment and support allowance will not
be liable to pay contributions for various services they receive from
social services, just as income support recipients are not. Further
amendments will mean that deductions can be made from income-related
employment and support allowance for council tax purposes just as they
can be made from income support.
The changes are necessary to
ensure that recipients of the new benefit are not inadvertently
disadvantaged, that the relevant rights and obligations still apply to
them, and that employment and support allowance fits into the framework
of existing legislative provision. I urge the Committee to accept the
amendments.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 80, in schedule 3, page 55, line 2, at end
insert—
‘Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c.
41)A2 In
section 53(3) of the Education (Scotland)Act 1980 (pupils who
qualify for free school meals etc.), in paragraphs (a) and (b), after
sub-paragraph (ii)
insert— “(iia) an
income-related allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2006
(employment and support
allowance);”.’. No.
81, in
schedule 3, page 55, line 2, at
end insert— ‘Transport Act
1982 (c.
49)A3 In
section 70 of the Transport Act 1982 (payments in respect of applicants
for exemption from wearing seat belts), in subsection (2) (applicants
who qualify), in paragraph (b), for “or an income-based
jobseeker’s allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act
1995)” substitute “, an income-based jobseeker’s
allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995), an income-related
allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2006 (employment and
support
allowance),”.’. No.
82, in
schedule 3, page 55, line 2, at
end insert— ‘Legal Aid
(Scotland) Act 1986 (c. 47)A4
(1) The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is amended as
follows. (2) In section 8(b)
(under which persons in receipt of certain benefits are eligible for
advice and assistance), for the words from second “or” to
the end substitute “, an income-based jobseeker’s
allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995) or an income-related
allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2006 (employment and
support
allowance),”. (3)
In section 11(2)(b) (under which persons not in receipt of certain
benefits are liable to contribute to the cost of advice and
assistance), for the words from second “or” to the end
substitute “, an income-based jobseeker’s allowance
(payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995) or an income-related allowance
under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2006 (employment and support
allowance),”.’.—[Mrs.
McGuire.] Amendment
proposed: No. 83, in schedule 3, page 55, line 2, at end
insert— ‘Income and
Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.
1)A5 (1) Section 347B of the
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (qualifying maintenance payments)
is amended as follows. (2) In
subsection (12) (payments to be treated as maintenance payments), at
the end of paragraph (b) insert “;
or “(iia) made by virtue
of section [Recovery of sums in respect of maintenance] of the Welfare
Reform Act 2006 (recovery of sums in respect of maintenance), or any
corresponding enactment in Northern Ireland, in respect of an
income-related employment and support allowance claimed by any other
person,”. (3) For
subsection (13)
substitute— “(13)
In subsection
(12)— “income-based
jobseeker’s allowance” has the same meaning as in the
Jobseekers Act 1995 or, for Northern Ireland, the same meaning as in
any corresponding enactment in Northern
Ireland; “income-related
employment and support allowance” means an income-related
allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2006 (employment and
support allowance) or, for Northern Ireland, under any corresponding
enactment in Northern
Ireland.”’.—[Mrs.
McGuire.]
| 
