Q
158Mr.
Harper: My final question is more general. Given that this
Bill is, in many ways, a framework Bill that gives Ministers the power
to draw up regulations, can you say whether or not the Committee will
be seeing draft regulations for any or all of the areas across the Bill
prior to our deliberations after the recess?
Mr.
McNulty: As I have made clear, I want to make
available as many of the regulations as possible during our
deliberations. I hope that I can at least provide the Committee with a
road map saying where in the Bill regulatory powers are taken.
Furthermore, as much as I can, I want to provide either a framework and
headline document of the regulations, or indeed the full regulations.
That is a much more efficient way of working than just saying,
“Here’s the Christmas tree. There are loads of regulatory
powers and you’ll have to wait till the
regulations.”
You
will forgive me but in some cases, particularly for large areas like
the right to control, the way in which the regulations will be taken
forward will rather depend on the broader policy framework that is
developed, not all of which is in the Bill. I know that this is a
complex area, so I wanted to give out a short document that essentially
tries to set out what was in the Green Paper, what was in the White
Paper, what was in Gregg, what needs legislation, and what is being
taken forward in other ways. Rather confusingly, we are already taking
forward some measures, such as the conversion from incapacity benefit
to employment and support allowance, which is central to much of what
is in the Bill. Some measures will be achieved through regulatory
powers based on previous legislation, and others will involve brand new
powers in primary legislation, with subsequent regulations.
I assure the
Committee that, as far as I possibly can, I will provide at least an
indication of what is going to be in the subsequent regulations, if not
the draft regulations themselves.
Mr.
Harper: We await them with
interest.
Q
159Mr.
Clappison: I want to ask a few questions about transition
and the provisions of clause 8. First, can I ask you very briefly about
something that you said to my colleague, Mr. Howell? I think
that the phrase that you used was that you were exploring the
parameters of contracting out for the flexible new deal and the
contracts that companies are bidding for at the moment. Contracting
lies at the background of much of what is in the Bill and we wait to
see how it turns out.
Things have
turned out to be worse than originally foreseen, have they not? There
are going to be many more long-term unemployed than were originally
envisaged. You announced a short pause in the programme of bidding for
contractors who want to take on the task of finding work for those
long-term unemployed. How long do you think that short pause will
be?
Mr.
McNulty: I will answer the direct question and then
provide the context. At this stage, we are still wedded to those
contracts being let, awarded and under way by September. The short
pause might throw up any number of issues that mean that that date
needs to move. From this perspective, at this very moment, we are still
wedded to—I hope—starting the flexible new deal in
September.
Mr.
McNulty: October, I am
told.
Mr.
Clappison: Yes, 1 October.
Mr.
McNulty: The very end of September,
then.
Mr.
Clappison: You are even keener than we
are. Mr.
McNulty: It is not long, and I take the
point.
Q
160Mr.
Clappison: There is a bidding process at the moment for
the contract to go into operation at the beginning of
October.
Mr.
McNulty: No, with respect, this is the tail end of
the bidding process. Interests were established as long ago as last
October and November. We are down to a shortlist, and there is a
process of working up the substance of the contracts and how they will
work. It is
right at the tail end of the process that the quantums are being looked
at. My only problem with the premise of your question is that I cannot
say as a matter of absolute fact that, over the course of the
contracts, there will be 300,000 long-term unemployed rather than
100,000. Given how we have rapidly moved since as recently as last
November, it is only fair that we reflect with the contractors on what
looks like shifting ground, in terms of a larger pool of longer term
unemployed than there might otherwise have been. That is why we have
moved from an original parameter of, say, 100,000 to 300,000. I am not
saying that there will be 300,000, but, given the shifting sands and
the way the economy has gone, it is more appropriate to look in that
regard.
Q
161Mr.
Clappison: That is fair enough. We may be at the tail end
of the bidding process, but the discovery that something is going to be
300 per cent. higher, which is what you said in the
letter—300,000 is the figure that you have
given—represents quite a development. Are you confident that you
will meet the deadline of 1 October? You said that you were
wedded to it, but do you expect to meet it?
Mr.
McNulty: I am confident that we will have a
sufficiently robust pause and reflection period to stay with the
October deadline, if the reflection period shows that that is what we
can do—[Laughter.] I know that that is
terribly Sir Humphrey and all that, but that is about the best I can
say, because we are in the middle of the reflection period. I do take
the point, but it would be wrong, given the circumstances that have
prevailed since November and December and the labour market statistics
that we saw yesterday, simply to stay on one horse because we
established it last year, and to say to the providers,
“There’s no opportunity at all to reflect on shifting
sands and different
circumstances.”
Q
162Mr.
Clappison: In that case we will wait and see, but we want
to know what is going to happen and when.
Clause 8, in
which you take the power to direct claimants to undertake specific
work-related activity, will apply to employment and support allowance
claimants as they are moved from incapacity benefit over time. In light
of that, what will happen to the very large, existing stock of
incapacity claimants—not the new people coming on to it, but the
stock that runs to some 2.6 million, 1.5 million of whom
have been on incapacity benefit for more than five years? We do not yet
know the details but, when you take those powers, what is going to
happen to somebody who is part of that stock of long-term incapacity
benefit claimants?
Mr.
McNulty: There are two points. When we
looked at the introduction of employment and support allowance, we
thought that it would be 2010 or 2011 before we started going into the
IB stock, as you call it, but, we have always had the caveat that the
implementation of the new ESA, and its successor or otherwise, would
determine how soon we got into the stock. There is, as you
imply—certainly from my perspective—an eagerness to start
shifting people from IB to ESA at the earliest opportunity, but we will
learn from the embedding of ESA. You will appreciate that there is a
lag, given the assessment process and all that, but we are about to get
the first indications of how the ESA implementation has gone since it
was introduced in October. The process usually takes two or three
months to bed in, and that, I
hope, will inform how quickly we can start getting into the IB
stock—for want of a better phrase—because I take on board
the points that you make.
Q
163Mr.
Clappison: What specifically do you envisage happening to
somebody among the existing stock of incapacity benefit claimants who
is aged over 50, of whom I imagine there are a
number? Mr.
McNulty: As we move from IB to ESA, those people,
rather like a new claimant, will be assessed and interviewed
appropriately. They will then be put into either the support group, if
there are sufficient disabilities for them not to be put on any
conditional basis, or the work-related group, meaning they will be
given appropriate help and support. Crucially, we are not telling those
in the support group that they should stay on ESA, if they want to
volunteer to join the work-related group without the degree of
compulsion.
Mr.
Clappison: I understand that. Everybody is agreed about
the support group—there is no conditionality on that because of
the nature of people’s
conditions. Mr.
McNulty: But is important to have that voluntary
aspect.
Q
164Mr.
Clappison: I think your estimate is that the majority of
people will actually be in the other group, to which conditionality
should apply. That is the non-support group and there will be many
people involved, including many existing claimants over
50. The
White Paper
says: “most
existing claimants over the age of 50 will be offered a single Work
Focused Interview, with the opportunity to take up further support on a
voluntary
basis.” Is
that what it all amounts to under the provisions that you were telling
us about under clause 8 and the extra help and support? Is that the sum
total?
Mr.
McNulty: It is a starting premise, although it will
be informed by what we learn from the ESA implementation. It may be
that, in terms of the Bill, the broader conditionality powers prevail.
That was what we said in the White Paper. I suspect that the truth,
once informed by the implementation by ESA, will sit between the
two.
Q
165Mr.
Clappison: As things stand, under existing
legislation—before the Bill comes into effect—somebody
who is over 50 years of age and on either employment support allowance
or incapacity benefit can take the support that they want on a
voluntary basis.
Mr.
McNulty: Yes, without the
Bill.
Q
166Mr.
Clappison: For those people, the direction that will come
about as a result of the Bill will be a single work-focused
interview.
Mr.
McNulty: As a starting point. Do Sharon or Jonathan
want to add anything?
Sharon
White: As you said, we are currently talking about
2.6 million people. This is an enormous practical undertaking. Part of
the support will be about getting people properly identified as
rightful claimants of an incapacity and disability benefit, as opposed
to jobseeker’s allowance. We expect that there will be a number
of people who do not get through the gateway on to the new ESA, but who
will get the support and the conditionality around jobseeker’s
allowance. How quickly we are able to bring in the full panoply of
support that we currently have in pathways to work for those who are on
employment and support allowance will be a resource
question.
Q
167Mr.
Clappison: I accept that point, but this has been the
problem all along. We have had this stock of claimants throughout the
whole history of welfare reform over the last 10 years. There is a bit
of tinkering around the edges and things happening for new people, but
the stock goes on growing, but people are on the benefit for longer and
longer, and in large numbers.
Jonathan
Shaw: First of all, the ESA has gone well to date. As
Sharon said, this is an enormous undertaking. You would be the first to
criticise us if we had not put in place the necessary infrastructure
and staff to ensure the smooth transition to which we are committed.
There is also the investment that we are putting into pathways to work,
which will be available for many people together with more tailored
provisions. It is a case of putting your question into the context of
other areas of investment that we provide to assist people to get off
benefit and into work.
Q
168Mr.
Clappison: I do not want to take all the time remaining,
Mr. Hood, but my point is about what extra provisions the
Bill will give us. We already have pathways to work.
Mr.
McNulty: We have said clearly that the assessment
process will be entirely different and focused on what people can do,
rather than what they cannot do. Your premise that every 50-year-old
who has been on IB for more than five years will get through the
gateway on to ESA is moot in the first place. If they do not, they will
go to the conditionality regime of JSA. If they do get on, the numbers
involved will be informed by the first round of the ESA, as
implemented. As you implied, we have had a guess at the
numbers—we think it will be a 20:80 split between support and
work-related claimants. However, we do not know how many people will
get in initially through the gateway that Sharon focused on from the
new cohorts of IB claimants. We will get more data on that as the ESA
beds in,
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Helen
Jones.) 10.24
am Adjourned
till Tuesday 24 February at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
