| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC287
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC287
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC287
Thursday, 18 June 2009.
Welfare Reform Bill
Main Bill Page
Copy of Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
7th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
14th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights
9th Report from the Constitution Committee
Committee (4th Day)
2 pm
Clause 2 : Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants
Lord Skelmersdale: I wonder whether it is only me who thinks that it is perhaps appropriate that on the fourth day of Committee we are starting at the beginning of page 6 of the Bill. Amendment 44 is, I hope, a simple point—although some of my simple points have elicited so much conversation on previous days that perhaps it is not as simple as all that.
I would merely like the Minister to confirm that this is a reference to the phasing of age cohorts made necessary by the rising pension age. If this is the case, as I assume, could he please relate that to the benefits systems being restructured under this Bill and say if, as a result, there will be any difference in the benefits paid the individuals who fall into different cohorts—and, if so, why? New Section 2D(8)(d) says that,
- “any reference to a person attaining pensionable age is ... a reference to the time when a woman born on the same day as the man would attain pensionable age”.
But where are the references? I could not find them earlier in the clause when I had a quick look through. I therefore assume that these references will be in the regulations flowing from the clause. Perhaps the Minister can help me out. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): Dealing with the noble Lord’s last point, about the references, I presume he means references to “under pensionable age”. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 2D(2) pick up somebody who,
I think that that is the reference that the noble Lord sought.
Dealing with the amendment more fully, it is not our intention to introduce the progression-to-work pathfinders for those parents who are of pensionable age. However, in order to achieve that intention, it is necessary for the provisions to define the meaning of “pensionable age” and to do so in a way which will treat men and women on an equal basis. If this amendment is accepted, men aged 60 or over would be treated differently to women of the same age until retirement ages are equalised for men and women in
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC288
The progression-to-work pathfinders are for parents of working age with a young child. In the rare cases where claimants of state pension age have a youngest child in this age group, they would still have voluntary access to the support on offer. For those parents who are about to reach pension age and have a youngest child aged three to six years old, we will still require them to attend a work-focused interview so that an adviser can discuss with them the benefits of entering work and the support available to help them do so. This is in line with proposals under Clause 28 to introduce work-focused interviews for people of pension age.
When introducing this measure, we will not roll this out immediately to all parents who qualify. Instead, we would want to introduce the progression-to-work model over time. When rolling out this initiative we will take a number of factors into account, which may include the age of the parent. I hope that that has dealt with each of the two main points that the noble Lord has pressed me on and, accordingly, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Certainly I will withdraw my amendment. I was interested to hear the Minister say that not everything will happen at the same time. Perhaps we can develop that thought a little later today. It is clear that parents of pensionable age need to be defined. I accept that, but I wonder how many such people exist in the system. Is there any way of telling how many parents of pensionable age we are talking about? I leave that thought with the Minister as it is probably unfair to bounce him with it now.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: If the noble Lord leaves me with that thought I will see whether we can produce some data.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: This is rather different. I may have got myself into a muddle thinking about the two rates of employment and support allowance. Amendments 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 constitute quite a large group. It has been made clear several times—the illustrative examples that the noble Lord kindly sent, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, described as panglossian the last time we met, confirmed this—that the requirements to undertake work-related activity are an unofficial contract between the personal adviser and the participant. Perhaps on reflection I should not
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC289
Nevertheless, the contract is what I might call person-specific, so although I am not particularly wedded to the word “individual” in this group of amendments, the action plan is individualised—a point made in several of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I am not sure that “individualised” is a particularly good word—“personalised” might be better. It would give a great deal of confidence to participants if the Bill were amended as the amendment suggests. I feel this particularly because all changes to social security laws are viewed with the greatest suspicion by those affected, or likely to be affected. The Minister cannot but be aware of the consternation of disabled people and their advisers that was expressed when discussing the first Welfare Reform Bill. None of us wants a repeat of that. I tabled the amendments to give a tiny bit of comfort to those who will be affected by the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will take his consideration of them in that particular light.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: This may well be the shortest speech that I shall make in Committee, but this is an extremely good amendment. Having the word “individual” before “action plan” will give out an entirely different signal, which is very important. Would it cost the Government anything to do that? I support the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I hope to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that it is not particularly appropriate. The exchange that we had the other day was not so much about sanctions but conditionality, and conditionality is not just about sanctions at the end of the process.
Lord Skelmersdale: Is it not like love and marriage—they go together?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: One follows the other, potentially, if the conditionality is not met. The infamous case studies were merely illustrative to try to help noble Lords. I would not want them to take on a significance beyond that, but perhaps they have.
Under the progression-to-work model, parents with younger children will be expected to agree an action plan with their adviser. It will set out the claimant’s individual route-way into work. The activities recorded in the action plan will be reviewed and updated at each subsequent meeting. When producing an action plan with an individual, the adviser will encourage parents to think about their aspirations, identify the strengths upon which they can build and agree steps that move them towards their goals. Together they will identify the support they need to do this. The adviser will ensure that the person’s wishes and individual family
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC290
We will ensure that safeguards are in place so that claimants are not put in a situation where they are being asked to comply with a requirement that is unreasonable or inappropriate to their individual circumstances. This will include circumstances where appropriate childcare is not available, as we have discussed extensively. We will also ensure that anyone facing a possible sanction can easily rectify their situation and should not therefore suffer unnecessary hardship or concern. During this joint process, however, I believe that we need to maintain the ability to direct a person to an activity, if after receiving the appropriate support, opportunity and guidance they remain reluctant to improve their circumstances. If there is a failure to carry out the agreed activity outlined in the plan, it could lead to further action and possibly a sanction, but this would only ever be as a last resort. Where someone is finding difficulties in meeting a particular activity agreed in the action plan, regulations will allow them to ask for the plan to be reconsidered.
Turning to this group of amendments, it is not our practice to include in legislation that activities will be individual to the claimant, but to ensure that that is emphasised and enforced in adviser training and guidance. Individualisation—or personalisation, to use the noble Lord’s term—to us means being responsive to the circumstances of, and the factors that affect, an individual. It is possible to have an individual action plan that is quite general, not personalised. The important thing is that the action plan meets the personal circumstances of that individual. An individual plan might be a general plan and putting the word “individual” on it would not change that. The personalisation of the plan is important.
Action plans will take into account, for instance, whether the person is in a couple or is a lone parent, has any health issues and their time out of and distance from the labour market, educational attainment, skills levels, confidence levels and aspirations for themselves and their family. I hope I have addressed as forcefully as I can the fact that action plans should and will be individualised and personalised, so that the wording proposed by the noble Lord is not necessary.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I am extremely confused. What on earth is the difference between a personalised action plan and an individual action plan? I have not quite grasped that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: There could be an action plan for individual A, but it could cover only general issues and be used for a range of individuals. It is important that the content of the action plan is constructed to address the needs of and the barriers faced by an individual. The fact that a plan is individual to a person does not mean that it is personalised in the way that we want it to be personalised.
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC291
2.15 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: The phrase “holes and digging” sprang into my mind as the Minister went through his brief. The Minister has said that action plans will take into account personal circumstances. We are not going to have—again to use an expression used earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—one size fits all. There will be a shelf, if you like, from which you can pick the various bits that are appropriate to that individual as it seems to the personal adviser. The personal adviser and the individual will agree what they are going to do. That will be set in concrete, almost, in the action plan. I cannot see why these action plans should not be described as personalised.
I said that I was not wedded to the particular word, given that these amendments use the word “individual”; none the less, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. She, like me, believes that you need to give confidence in legislation, especially social security legislation, to those people who are going to be affected by it. At the moment, I cannot see that sort of confidence arising in the Bill. Of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but I have absolutely no doubt that I shall need to come back to this at the next stage of the Bill, unless the Minister’s comments throw me.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: If we are to discuss the matter at a subsequent stage that is probably the best time to do so, and I could reiterate the point I have just made. I will just try it once more. The fact that you have an individual action for person A and an individual action plan for person B does not of itself mean that the contents of those action plans are personalised to individual A and individual B. I would hope that we have agreement that these action plans need to be “personalised”, to pick up the noble Lord’s word. Referring in the legislation to an individual action plan does not achieve that.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: If you are going to tailor the plan to an individual’s circumstances, which the Minister says that you would do, cannot that be reflected somehow in the wording?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am certainly happy to reflect on that. I genuinely think that it is unnecessary, however. I do not think that we are apart on what we want these action plans to contain, and the framing of the legislation is perfectly adequate to achieve that. The amendment is not particularly helpful. If the request were whether there was some other way to change the legislation to make it clear in primary legislation that it should be personalised to the circumstances of the individual, I would be happy to reflect on that. I cannot promise that we would end up with a different result. I do not detect from any of this exchange that we have a difference of view on what we want those action plans to contain in practice and what we want them to achieve.
Lord Skelmersdale: True, we do not have a difference in view, but what we have is a piece of legislation that I do not believe reflects that approach. Everything we have learnt about the various statutory instruments
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC292
Clearly, we are not going not get any further on this subject today. The Minister has said that he would reflect. He is obviously doing some quick reflecting this afternoon.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: We have probably almost beaten this one to death. However, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to new Clause 2E(1), which says:
“The Secretary of State must in prescribed circumstances provide a document (referred to in this section as an “action plan”) prepared for such purposes as may be prescribed to a person who is subject to a requirement imposed under section 2A or 2AA in relation to any of the following benefits”.
That links it to an individual. However, rather than spending more time this afternoon, given the other amendments to come, I am happy to take this away and reflect on it. I am not sure that we will have a meeting of minds, but let us see what we can do.
Lord Skelmersdale: I detect a soapy mirror for reflection. I do not think that that was a very good example and it does not meet the point made by the noble Baroness and me. I am delighted that the Minister will give this matter further thought, but he has given absolutely no guarantee that he will come back to it. If he does not, I assure him that I will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Given that social security laws are viewed with great suspicion outside the two Houses of Parliament, it is beholden on the Government to be very clear and inform people in advance of the pilots starting and, even more importantly, to publicise what is going on before work-related activity is rolled out countrywide. That applies equally to able-bodied people; doubtless, we will hear quite a lot more about this in our discussions.
Employment and support allowance, to which Amendment 46 refers, when it is fully up and running is to be paid at two rates. Let us forget the first 13 weeks, when everybody is on the lower rate; what we are interested in here is when the two weeks operate side by side for a longer period of time. It is also, like jobseeker’s allowance, to be paid on two different criteria, depending on the amount of NICs paid. If I am right—and I think that I probably am—the higher rate is payable when the claimant needs to be supported because of disability, the lower one when the claimant has limited capability to work. My problem with line 21 on page 6 of the Bill is that
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC293
Hence, I have tabled this probing amendment to discover what plans the Government have for the long-term ill and disabled. I am sorry—I should have put “people” in that sentence; I apologise particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. From the wording on the Bill, which covers everyone on contributory ESA, the Government must have some reason, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain. It would also be useful for him to explain the thinking regarding those on the non-contributory basis of ESA, which also needs to be covered somewhere. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: These provisions generally deal with recipients of income support or with partners of certain recipients of income-related benefits. If I understood the thrust of the noble Lord’s remarks, he seeks to ensure that ESA claimants in the support group are not brought within the provisions. I understand why he tabled the amendment, but I hope that I can convince him, at least on this occasion, that it is unnecessary.
Clause 2 inserts new Sections 2D, 2E and 2F into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Together with the existing provisions in Sections 2A and 2AA of that Act, they provide the basis for introducing the concept of a progression-to-work group, as envisaged by the Gregg review.
By his amendment, the noble Lord seeks to protect those receiving the support component in employment and support allowance from the strictures of these provisions. However, the provisions of this clause apply only to claimants of income support and the partners of claimants of that benefit, of income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment and support allowance. So it applies to the lone parents with younger children whom we have discussed and the partners of claimants of other income-related benefits. The clause does not impact on claimants of the employment and support allowance at whatever rate that benefit is paid, so the amendment could not have the effect that the noble Lord seeks.
There are extant powers in Sections 13 to 15 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 which allow us to subject employment and support allowance recipients to work-related activity, action plans and adviser directions, but none of those provisions applies to claimants in the support group. The construction of Clause 2, together with existing legislation in the Welfare Reform Act, does not permit people in the support group to be subjected to work-related activity. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment in light of that explanation.
18 Jun 2009 : Column GC294
Lord Skelmersdale: I would not even have considered putting down this amendment, but for the fact that new Section 2E (2)(c) of the Social Security Administration Act does not refer to employment and support allowance, which given, as the Minister has just said, that the section refers to recipients and future recipients of income support or income-related benefits, caused me slight confusion.
I am glad that the support group of ESA will never be expected to fit into the progression-to-work part of the Bill, but the limited-capacity-for-work group on the lower rate of ESA obviously will be. Would it not be appropriate to have an action plan for them, with everything that goes with it?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |