Mr Norman Lamb (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

I want to voice some concerns and put some questions to the Minister about the clause's impact. There has been concern about its impact on carers who are the partners of disabled people. Those concerns might be allayed by the way in which the regulations are framed.

I note that new section 2AA(6) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for exemptions from the requirement to attend a work-focused interview. The concern is that to require a person who is the partner of a disabled person and their full-time carer to attend a work-focused interview as a condition for benefit to be paid at the higher rate would undermine the legitimacy of what they do, which is care full time for their partner. Furthermore, a partner may have learning difficulties and may not

understand the request for the interview, or he or she may be unable to attend because of illness. Will such people be protected by the way in which the regulations are framed?

The explanatory notes state on page 32:

''There is no intention to set out in regulations the categories of people for whom this would be appropriate.''

In other words, regulations will not identify those people who will not be required to attend a work-focused interview. The notes continue:

''Such decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances of the individual.''

I do not know whether internal guidance to staff who will have to make such decisions will give the necessary information to protect people, particularly full-time carers who may feel that their role is undermined by the requirement to attend the interview. I understand that, provided the interview is framed correctly, it could benefit even the categories of person that I have described, enabling them to discuss the benefits to which they could be entitled. They may be given guidance on how to improve their position if work, in itself, is not appropriate.

Mr Mark Simmonds (Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

Has the hon. Gentleman thought that one resolution to his eloquently made point is to provide for certain categories of person, such as carers, to go through the interview process at home, rather than having to travel somewhere that is inconvenient for the purposes of caring?

Mr Norman Lamb (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

That is an extremely sound and sensible suggestion. The explanatory notes indicate that in some circumstances it may be appropriate to conduct the interview at the person's home, and that would be appropriate for carers in particular. I am worried about the description ''work-focused interview'', because the guidance that carers need may have nothing to do with getting into work; instead, they might need advice about access to things such as benefits. I will be grateful for the Minister's reassurance.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

It is good to be here, Mr. Conway. I realise that my part in this drama is that of a small speaking role alongside the lead actor, but it is nice to join the Committee on a significant clause. I am grateful for the way in hon. Members have raised important issues, which I will address.

Clause 47 allows for the Secretary of State to require, through regulations, partners of recipients of social security benefits to take part in work-focused interviews when the benefit received includes an amount for the partner. That is not an onerous or unreasonable requirement. We are asking partners to discuss their situation and work aspirations with an adviser so that they are aware of the practical and financial help on offer. No other requirement will be placed on them and partners will not be forced into the labour market; they will be required only to attend the interview, and not to find work or join a new deal programme. The requirement will be introduced in a way that takes account of individual circumstances.

The clause is a modest, common-sense way of balancing the rights and responsibilities of claimants.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Perhaps I am anticipating what the Minister is about to say, but I would be interested if he were to explain the genesis of the clause. It is clear that until the general election the Government planned to introduce work-based interviews for people who were unemployed. After the election, in which there was a clear manifesto commitment restricting the policy to unemployed people's partners, they broadened it on the basis of evidence that they had received from, for example, Martin Taylor and the Policy Studies Institute.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I know that all members of the Committee recognise the Government's success in bringing down levels of unemployment—

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

They're going up again.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I am willing to debate the record of the previous Tory Government and that of the current Labour Government, but you may not wish us to enter into that one-sided contest, Mr. Conway.

Although we have high employment, we recognise that there is still a great deal of economic inactivity and that many people in the community who would like the opportunity to work either now or in the future need the support of a work-focused interview. That goes for several categories of people, potentially including the partners of some of those on benefit. That is the genesis of the clause.

The concept of work-focused interviews is not new to members of the Committee. Work-focused interviews and the Bill support the Government's continuing commitment to increased economic activity, which will provide more people with the best social security policy, namely, a job. The work-focused interview with a personal adviser is intended to encourage partners to take further steps, where appropriate, toward labour market participation by exploring ways in which they can overcome barriers that prevent them from looking for work. The partner will be provided with a personal and tailored service by a personal adviser and given access to a wide range of help and information on work, benefits—acknowledged by the hon. Member for North Norfolk—and services.

If a partner fails to participate in an interview without showing good cause for that failure, the claimant's benefit will be reduced by way of sanction. The clause introduces into the Social Security Administration Act 1992 new section 2AA, which provides for regulations to be made. I shall not go into detail, but the main powers are in subsection (1), which specifies that

''Regulations may make provisions for or in connection with''

the requirement to take part in such interviews. It is right that people take part in interviews with a personal adviser, and that they are made aware of the help that is on offer.

We will of course implement that requirement in a way in which takes account of individual circumstances. It may not always be appropriate to interview someone at the required time. In cases such

as that of a partner who has recently been discharged from hospital following a serious illness, or that of a partner who has just given birth, the interview may be deferred until an individual's circumstances improve. If a partner has recently had an interview with an adviser as a benefit claimant in their own right, there will not be a requirement to have another interview.

Subsection (2) prescribes the benefits to which the provisions applies, which gets us close to the questions asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Jobseeker's allowance, income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance are the main benefits payable to people of working age.

The Committee might believe that someone who is the partner of a recipient of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance, or whose partner is a recipient of invalid care allowance in their own right, would not be available for work because of their caring responsibilities; however, the concept of the work-focused interview is to provide partners with the opportunity to discuss their situation and aspirations. It is based on treating everyone as individuals, and not just according to their circumstances.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

May I make more progress?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

You've made a fair bit.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Okay.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister, who has not been in Committee throughout its whole course. Our debates have been relaxed, and there has been a fair amount of exchanges during the course of ministerial speeches.

Does the Minister accept that some people may think that something jars or does not sit comfortably between the concept of compulsory interviews required by statute and the language that he is using about presenting people with opportunities to discuss their aspirations? People who are looking for opportunities and have aspirations will willingly and gladly undertake such interviews, so compulsion would not normally be necessary.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I am happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I was not being discourteous—I thought that if I could make more progress, I would be able to allay some of his doubts.

The partners of people receiving benefits may not be aware that jobcentre plus is a facility that might be of benefit to them. The element of compulsion is very moderate and will not apply in difficult circumstances. We need to strike a balance between someone's right to receive a benefit, albeit through their partner who is the actual claimant, and their duties to the wider community. Most would agree that it is right that such people should receive money from the wider community through the state, and that it is not unreasonable that they should have to comply with the request simply to turn up and have a discussion. People want a more rigorous, tough-minded approach to that balance between rights and duties, and they

would not quarrel if, as we intend, we deliver it sensitively.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I am a little confused about the genesis of the measure. In June, the Secretary of State said in a press release that there was to be a welfare reform Bill that would make work-focused interviews compulsory for partners of working age benefit recipients. Was he referring to clause 47 of the Employment Bill to be debated six months later? Will there be a welfare reform Bill, or is this it?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

There is legislation before the House that falls broadly under the banner of welfare reform, some of which deals with the integrated child tax credit—[Interruption.] That is welfare reform in the sense that most people understand the term. There is also legislation dealing with the pension credit. We have made use of the Employment Bill, which is mainly about other matters, to introduce two clauses that relate closely to welfare reform. In the fullness of time, other measures on welfare reform may need to be brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman should not be puzzled about that. The job of the Committee is to deal with the substance of the matter and to judge whether it is a sensible way of proceeding. We believe that it is.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is trying to establish whether the welfare reform Bill that he mentioned is dead or is sitting in somebody's drawer waiting to come before Parliament later in this Session or during the next.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

We have a full legislative programme to deal with welfare reform through various Bills, and there is no need to speculate about the future. I am happy to discuss this all night, Mr. Conway, but you may not be. We are here to scrutinise the Bill and that is what I am trying to do, not least because the hon. Member for North Norfolk asked some serious questions about carers that I am anxious to deal with.

The extension of the work-focused interview scheme will ensure that as many partners as possible are aware of and benefit from the opportunities on offer. The interview will be a meaningful two-way discussion between the partner and their personal adviser. Advisers are trained to provide information and advice and will help partners to explore ways in which they can overcome barriers to work and move closer to the labour market. In return, partners will be required to participate actively in the interview.

Mr Hywel Williams (Caernarfon, Plaid Cymru)

I am a little puzzled. Recipients of invalid care allowance are included, yet one receives that allowance on the condition that one does not engage in full-time work and the care provided exceeds 35 hours. Will the interviews to which the Minister refers be prospective, taking into account future possibilities? If so, will he bear in mind that many who are in receipt of invalid care allowance are in fact long-term carers who might be unable to return to the labour market for an extended period?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Recipients of ICA often care for people in the long term, but their role as carer might also relate to a short-term condition.

I am sensitive to this issue, not least because I had the good fortune to sponsor, with all-party support and the support of the then Government, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which enabled carers to have their needs assessed for the first time. I am proud of that legislation and its impact. Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that I take an active interest in these matters and remain vice-president—albeit largely inactive—of the Carers National Association, which is now known as Carers UK.

We need to be sensitive to the needs of carers and their role in the home. We all realise that they are our most active citizens, and some of them exercise their caring responsibilities in very onerous circumstances. In making absolutely clear the right of carers to fulfil that role and to enjoy the associated benefits and services, we must be careful not to make the mistake of typecasting them as purely carers for ever. I am conscious that, when the nature of the care provided permits, many carers now want the opportunity to combine caring with part-time participation in the labour market. That might be possible, for example, if the cared-for person is looked after in a day centre, or respite care is provided. The fact is that many carers in Britain today are already carer-workers: they have a caring responsibility but they are already in the labour market. Yes, such people have rights in terms of care and the associated benefits and services, but they also have the right to participate in the labour market.

When the carer's responsibility ends—because a cared-for person recovers or, sadly, because a spouse or elderly parent dies—many find it enormously difficult to get back into the labour market. Such people might be in their 50s, and have been carers reliant on benefit for many years. The new powers in the clause will enable the welfare state, in the form of jobcentre plus, to engage those people in a discussion about their future, perhaps several years before they are able to take advantage of it. The fact that someone is interested in their future could boost carers' confidence in the interim, and attending an appropriate course at a further education college might enable them to get back to work in future. That is why I am a great supporter of the clause, and I recommend it to the Committee.

Ms Helen Jones (Warrington North, Labour)

I strongly support the Government's action because many people in my constituency—especially women, who were previously ignored by the system—have already benefited greatly from the voluntary scheme. However, it worries me that advisers must deal with many people with different responsibilities and needs. I am particularly concerned about people with learning difficulties, a point raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. I have seen a couple of tragic examples of people who did not understand what was happening and lost benefits as a result.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that, when the work-focused interviews for partners go ahead, he deals with this matter through regulation, perhaps by ensuring that the letters that go out are clear, and by

making it clear that those with learning difficulties have the right to be accompanied to an interview, so that they understand fully what is going on and their needs are met?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

That is a useful point. I shall ensure that such people can have with them at such interviews their carer, or someone from a voluntary organisation, or a social worker where appropriate. However, referring to particular cases, I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we must resist the prejudice that says that, for example, a benefits recipient's partner who has serious learning difficulties such as Down's syndrome will never work. I have seen shining examples in my own borough of Croydon of young people in their 20s with Down's syndrome who, with the right support, have been enabled to secure a job. That is crucial.

I understand that members of the Committee want to be reassured that we are not being draconian. We will approach these matters with great sensitivity, so that a person who needs to take a companion to the interview is able to do so. Furthermore, in cases where, because of a caring responsibility, the interview is best held in a person's home, that, too, should be allowed. We must act with great sensitivity.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to the successful pilot projects that have been conducted on work-focused interviews for individual claimants. Why have the Government decided not to proceed by a pilot-based project in the probably more complex area of work-focused interviews for partners of claimants?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we pilot where we think it appropriate. Pilot exercises have greatly informed our approach to welfare reform, if I may use that phrase without the hon. Gentleman asking me about genesis again.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Or exodus.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Or any other group.

We have now had a great deal of experience of personal advisers helping young people who are out of work, the long-term unemployed and others, which we think will enable us to roll out the policy for this extra group. Our personal advisers, many of whom I meet in my work, have a great deal of experience of helping people in different circumstances—those with learning difficulties and so on, and I am confident that we can implement this policy with sensitivity. I am anxious to give way to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

As the Minister is anxious to give way, I shall stand up and give him somebody to give way to.

Clearly we can support much of the principle here, and I accept that the Minister is trying to ensure that those who can look, or should be looking, for work are focused in that direction, while those on whom it is inappropriate to apply pressure do not find themselves under pressure. He said that we will need to implement the scheme ''with much sensitivity''. Does he accept that his Department has not always been as effective as it would like in implementing rules of this kind with

much sensitivity and that there have been cases where people who should not feel under pressure have felt under pressure? Does he acknowledge that this huge machine has difficulty in operating with much sensitivity?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I acknowledge that, in the current job market, for those who have had difficulty in finding work or who, because of personal circumstances, learning difficulties and so on, are less able to enter the labour market and feel less confident about it, much of the future lies in the face-to-face interview through the personal adviser, who must often deal with quite complex individual circumstances. That is why the training that we give our staff and—yes—sensitivity are at a premium.

If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether my Department has always got it right in the past, the answer must be no, we have not always got it right. All institutions make mistakes. Where mistakes are brought to our attention, we investigate, try to remedy the individual mistake and learn the lessons. Are we perfect? No, we are not, but we are striving to be as sensitive as we can be about these issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall monitor the situation carefully in future.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

The Minister talked about training. According to the Library brief on the Bill, an early result of the evaluation of the ONE pilot scheme was:

''Staff were generally positive about the pilots . . . However, they identified a number of problems, including insufficient or untimely training, a lack of continuity in the PA service, and a lack of experience in defining and responding to the needs of claimants who are not ready to work.''

How is the Department approaching the problems identified from the pilot scheme of the earlier, similar, work-focused interview projects?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

That demonstrates, as I said earlier and as the hon. Gentleman believes, the importance of a pilot. That is why the ONE pilots have been enormously valuable, as we now start to, to use that terrible phrase, roll out the ambitious programme of jobcentre plus. We are learning from those pilots and we place great emphasis on the importance of training and professional development, and also on consulting, nationally and locally, charitable bodies and voluntary organisations that represent some of the most vulnerable groups. We shall continue to learn. It is important that we do so.

Mrs Betty Williams (Conwy, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North referred to people with learning difficulties, and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about another angle of this problem. I am thinking of those with dyslexia or dysphasia, who, on top of those difficulties, are expected to discuss their feelings and their needs in their second language. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I represent a Welsh constituency. Wales has the Welsh Language Act 1993, but problems have arisen with some benefits when SEMA has been unable to provide doctors who can speak in English and Welsh. A person who suffers from dyslexia has great difficulty in explaining their history and their need in

their second language. That calls for even greater sensitivity.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

A range of circumstances and cases may arise, some affecting large numbers, others affecting only one person, where we must prove that, when we talk about sensitivity, we can deliver in practice. Clearly we shall talk to people in the Welsh language, but across the United Kingdom there are others from different communities abroad who may not speak English, and we must be sensitive about the way in which we engage those people in a work-focused interview. One thing that we would want to address in an interview would be the ability of someone who had recently come to this country to acquire English language skills.

Mr Norman Lamb (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister may be about say a little more on this subject, but may I press him on the way in which the regulations will deal with the difficult cases recognised in subsection (6), in which it would not be appropriate to hold a work-focused interview? The explanatory notes say:

''There will be certain people for whom a work-focused interview will not be appropriate. There is no intention to set out in regulations the categories of people for whom this would be appropriate. Such decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances of the individual.''

Where a carer is clearly working full-time to look after their partner, will it be down to the discretion of the officer or adviser concerned to determine whether it would be appropriate to require them to attend a work-focused interview? Or, rather, will there be guidance on that in regulations, or guidance by means of circulars in the Department? Can the Minister explain further how such a circumstance will be dealt with?

I would like clarification on something else. I accept that there is a case for requiring people to attend such an interview, even carers. As the Minister eloquently said, there might be all sorts of ways in which they could be helped, including through raising the possibility of future or part-time employment. He has recognised the importance of dealing with such people with great sensitivity, which I welcome. Given the importance of sensitivity, is it appropriate to require such people to attend something that appears to be, as described in the Bill, ''work-focused''? Does that terminology need to be looked at to ensure that when those people are required to attend, they do not feel that the legitimacy of what they spend their entire life doing is being undermined?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's points, which are sensible. I do not think that we plan to change the term ''work-focused interview'', but when he was speaking, it struck me that much will depend on the nature of the letter that invites a person for interview and how we there present the possibilities for the interview. I have said that issues about benefit entitlement will also be properly addressed. Much will depend on how we draft that letter.

The adviser will make a decision based on regulations and guidance. A difficulty, and a common one, is that although it is tempting to

include a range of details in regulations, there would then always be some case forgotten or not included, perhaps affecting a small group of people. There are always such dangers. We will, however, be guided by discussions with appropriate organisations such as Carers UK. We will also be guided by the issues that have been raised during this interesting Committee sitting. My colleagues will examine this debate to ensure that our advice is sensitive to the important issues raised by hon. Members in the Committee.

Mrs Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions is undertaking a review of the ONE pilot. I am sure that when our report is concluded and published, he and his colleagues will examine what we have to say as well as the reports from his Department.

I have a specific question. When a partner comes for a work-focused interview, will the personal adviser do a better-off calculation with that person? When I speak to my constituents, many are unclear about in-work benefits and do not always realise that, if one of them went back to work and if they have, for example, an entitlement to working families tax credit, they could be substantially better off than if they stayed on benefit. If they do not have an interview, they do not always realise that. Will my hon. Friend look at including better-off calculations in the work-focused interviews?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Yes, I will. Where appropriate, a better-off calculation is very important. As my hon. Friend says, many people are understandably ignorant—I do not use the term pejoratively—of in-work benefits. She has mentioned the working families tax credit and there is also the new child tax credit. As the Minister responsible for housing benefit, I know that many people do not understand that they can receive that benefit when in work, depending on their income level. Better-off calculations, which now feature in the jobcentre and jobcentre plus, will be part of the work-focused interview where absolutely appropriate.

I understand that I did not entirely respond to the point about whether a full-time carer should be allowed not to attend the interview. I would be reluctant to concede that, for the reasons that I explained earlier. We must think about a carer's future. Yes, many people care full-time for those with serious conditions, working longer hours than parliamentarians—sometimes literally around the clock. It would be absurd to assume that such a person could somehow bounce into the labour market on Monday morning.

As I said earlier, I am also aware from my experience of working with carers and talking to their representatives that the moment can come when the cared-for person dies and the carer has to move on. That can be very difficult. A common and understandable complaint from carers is that people pat them on the back and politicians make good oratory about them, but come the crunch no one is really interested and they are taken for granted. I do not want them taken for granted by jobcentre plus,

and the provision will ensure that they are not. Even if the return to the labour market is several years away, they might be helped through training or education programmes.

On the issue of sensitivity, we will have got it wrong if a carer gets our letter and thinks, ''What's going on here? They think I can work?'' However, we will have demonstrated that we are not taking the carer for granted if they say, ''This is interesting. Jobcentre plus is interested in me. I had rather a good interview and I have some ideas now about the future. She said I can come back and see her whenever I need to.''

Mr Mark Simmonds (Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

Can the Minister assure me that if a carer is unable to make a work-focused interview because of the needs of the individual for whom they are responsible, they will not be penalised through benefit reduction? Will that be in the regulations?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

If a carer, because of her or his caring responsibilities, is simply unable to make the interview either on that appointment date or for ever, of course we will not push it, although I hope that we will make it clear that we are still there for the person if we can ever be of service to them. Clearly, there are some people dealing with the most extraordinary circumstances for whom that would not be appropriate. For every person like that, however, there are many asking why no one takes an interest in them. The work-focused interview will do that.

Mr Norman Lamb (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

I am pleased to hear that the Minister will consult organisations such as Carers UK about such things as the wording of the letters. Has Carers UK given any views on this so far, and demonstrated support for the concept, provided that it is implemented as the Minister describes?

I do not think that the Minister specifically dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness about home interviews. It is very important for carers to be able to have interviews at home. Will guidance advise us on that?

The Minister said that he would not want to concede that it would be inappropriate for carers to attend the interviews, and I accept that because I can see how attending could assist them. However, his Department must have thought of the circumstances in which subsection (6) will apply. In what difficult circumstances does he envisage that it would be inappropriate to hold the interview?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

It comes down to common sense. If a person is caring for someone who is clearly in their last weeks or months of a terminal illness, it would be totally inappropriate to insist that they had an interview. Guided by what has been said today, regulations, advice and the common sense of our staff—they are full of good common sense because they are at the interface of our communities day after day—I am sure that we can get this right.

Mr Norman Lamb (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

And home interviews?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I dealt with that earlier, but I confirm that in appropriate circumstances we will be able to interview at home, or wherever the individual felt comfortable.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am reassured on what the Minister says about the sensitivity with which matters will be dealt. I have a technical question. Perhaps I am not reading the clause properly, but why will the provision not apply in Northern Ireland? Do comparable provisions already exist under that jurisdiction, or will they in future?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I think that I shall be able to answer that shortly. If I cannot, I will write to my hon. Friend. Social security is a devolved matter, so it is not something for us, but we have good relations with our colleagues in Northern Ireland.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I do not want to be too technical or create difficulties, but that had occurred to me. The provision appears to apply in Wales and Scotland so is this a case of a different aspect of devolution?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Social security applies in the same way across England, Wales and Scotland. The situation is a little different in Northern Ireland, but social security is a matter for Britain, not just England. I am sure that parallel provisions will exist in Northern Ireland. To further clarify, although we do not want regulations to be exhaustive of every case that we can think of, there will be a list of good cause examples—things to take into account—in the guidance.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

It has taken me a moment to catch up with that response. From being in Committees, I am familiar with Ministers saying that something or other is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly, and assuring Committee that there will be parallel and similar provisions. That happens because the Labour party has a large influence in those bodies. To my recollection, the Labour party does not control the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. How will the Minister assure the Committee that a parallel provision will be enacted in the devolved Northern Ireland arrangements when the governing party in the UK does not control them?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Where matters are devolved—we have satisfied ourselves that we are not talking about Scotland, Wales or England, but Northern Ireland—yes, devolution creates diversity and difference. However, my assumption is that after discussion with our democratic colleagues we will see similar arrangements in Northern Ireland. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman that people who are not necessarily paid-up members of the Labour party sometimes agree with us because of the sheer wisdom of what we are doing.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I saw on the news last night that those democratic colleagues had been discussing these matters with the Prime Minister only yesterday.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

Given that there appear to be no more relevant points, I propose that all members of the Committee vote to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.