Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in schedule 1, page 49, line 2, after ‘Act,’ insert—

‘( ) a contributory allowance,’.

I am slightly worried about saying it, but this should be a brief debate on the amendment, which involves a drafting omission. As Committee members will be aware, schedule 1 is duplicated from existing income support and incapacity benefit legislation, but we omitted to include the phrases contained in the amendment.

The amendment extends the definition of “benefit” given in paragraph 1(5) of schedule 1, which defines what is meant by “benefit” for the purposes of paragraph 1(4) of schedule 1. We use the current regulations to relax the first contribution condition so that it can be satisfied if sufficient contributions have been paid in any one tax year, not necessarily one of the previous three tax years. We want to be able to do the same in future for people who have been entitled to contribute to ESA and to do so we must ensure that to contribute to ESA is defined as a benefit in paragraph 1(5). I apologise for that drafting omission.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in schedule 1, page 50, line 41, after ‘receiving’, insert ‘full time’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 170, in schedule 1, page 51, leave out line 28.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I join the Minister in welcoming you the Chair, Mr. Hood. I look forward to serving in this Committee under your chairmanship.

The amendments are designed to probe, in order to clarify the Government’s definition of education with respect to the qualifying criteria for the ESA. Paragraph 285 of the explanatory notes states that regulations will set out what is to be treated as education and when it may not apply, but we need to hear a bit more from the Government about what they mean by education and how they wish it to apply in this case.

For example, income support entitlement is usually allowed for part-time students and not full-time students, so amendment No. 164 would insert the words “full time” to make that clear. Indeed, exceptions in the case of income support that allow full-time education include, for example, students who are eligible for the disability premium and deaf people who receive the disabled students’ allowance.

The point that I wish to make is that the rules surrounding this benefit must not be a disincentive for people to learn. The Bill should allow more opportunities than at present to improve employment chances through education and training and it is particularly important that the terms of the Bill do not put up new barriers to people who might be suffering an impairment, condition or disability to access education and training while continuing to be able to claim their benefits.

I want to bring some relevant figures to the attention of the Committee, for which I am grateful to the Disability Rights Commission. Of those currently in receipt of incapacity benefit, 40 per cent. have no qualifications whatsoever and 15 per cent. have literacy and numeracy problems. It is worth noting, too, that having qualifications can increase the chances of a disabled person being in paid employment by 30 per cent. for men and 45 per cent. for women. In the context of the overall objectives of the Bill, encouraging education, training and gaining qualifications is vital.

As the disability premium for income support will be abolished under ESA, will the Minister clarify how students will be identified as qualifying for income-based ESA while studying full-time? People who receive income support can get reductions in their course fees and sometimes fee waivers. That does not apply to people who are on incapacity benefit, although some colleges individually allow fee waivers. Will the Minister explain how he thinks that people who receive income-based ESA will be supported in the high cost of post-16 education? Will a fee waiver apply to ESA recipients in the context of the Bill?

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood. I look forward to serving under your no doubt wise and erudite chairmanship.

I wish to speak in strong support of the amendments. We have reflected carefully on them and we support them because the role of education needs to be fleshed out if the Bill is to achieve the objectives that the Government have set out. In particular, part-time and even full-time education are often vital stepping-stones towards getting back into full employment. The Committee will be aware that one of the most iniquitous problems facing disabled people trying to lead an independent life and contribute fully to society is the education disadvantage that they suffer. Statistics such as the fact that a disabled person with a higher education qualification is more likely to be out of work than a non-disabled person with no qualification ought to give pause to anyone and make them think. In considering the drafting of the Bill we must be careful  not to ignore inadvertently the fact that education is part of a solution, not part of the problem. Although we understand that for obvious cost reasons it is not possible to give the employment and support allowance automatically to everyone in full-time education, we would have much greater success in getting people into the labour market if we had a more positive attitude to the role of education.

I must declare an interest: before I was elected to Parliament last May, I ran my own publishing business. We published guides and websites to help people get on the right course and choose the right university or college. My hon. Friends might be relieved to know that it was a healthily capitalist occupation for me—at that time, of course, it was a different Conservative party. [Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

Order. I ask hon. Members not to be tempted to interrupt Members when they are on their feet.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

Thank you for rescuing me, Mr. Hood.

I declare that interest to show that I have some degree of knowledge of the business background and of how courses have become a vital way for people who are out of the labour market to re-engage in it. I used to have an image of adult education as being flower arranging, cake-making, Latin, Japanese, Shakespeare sonnets and other such wonderful and enjoyable pursuits. In fact, when visiting adult education colleges one finds that a huge number of the courses offered equip people with relevant skills.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the technology industry, many people with learning difficulties and mental health challenges attend courses and are subsequently able to be placed with employers? There is definitely an opening for part-time and full-time courses to assist in meeting the Bill’s objectives.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which brings me in a relevant way to my other points. Education is an important part of the solution, so the Bill needs flexibility. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for INBS, as I think I shall call him from now on—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey—would at least make part-time education possible.

I hope that when we discuss education we will consider it also in relation to the support part of the new employment and support allowance. We shall come to that later, but if the Government are serious about wanting to allow people on the support package to volunteer for the pathways programme, they need to understand the role of education in making that possible. Education might not be a matter simply of job placement, although that is what it is most likely to be for people on the work-related part of the allowance package. I support the amendment.

Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)

May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood? You have probably picked up on the fact that the debate has been broadly consensual and good-natured, and I shall not subvert that. I wish to add only one or two comments.

First, one should always have regard to the control function as well as the relaxation function, so Ministers may need to reflect on the current definition of education. For many people education will be perceived as attending an institution in which education is delivered, but the internet and online learning may require Ministers to draw the definitions widely to embrace the appropriate restrictions. I am not anxious to encourage them to go further, but I put those views on the record.

On my second point, I should declare an interest as one of the parliamentary patrons of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. The Minister is looking at me wryly. As he will well remember, as a former Minister with responsibility for higher and further education, I am deeply committed to the cause of lifelong learning and I look only for allies on both sides of the Committee in relation to it. We all believe that it is important—whether in an employment-related or support-related context, or in a context unrelated to other matters. It is a good in itself, quite apart from the employment side of it, although I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey on its relevance to employment for people who have been out of the labour market for some time and whose lack of prior attainment, though not ability, may disqualify them or hold them back from reaching the appropriate level in that market.

Finally, although the words have not been mentioned, I suspect that somewhere, stalking this debate, is the mythic figure of 16 hours concerning people’s availability for full-time work, or their potential availability for it were they able to go through the pathways and get access to work. The suggestion is that there should be a distinction. At the time of my ministerial experience of more than a decade ago there was a rigorous distinction between the student support package and the support that is available through the benefits system, and that has broadly been maintained, but the explanatory notes already indicate that there is some possibility of eroding or eliding it for disabled students. I do not think that Ministers will expect me to declare the end of the 16-hour rule as far as the Opposition are concerned. If they do, they will be disappointed; it is a debate for another occasion. However, and I speak in all seriousness, the role of education is important, and we should like to feel that the system works to facilitate it so as to encourage people back to work. We do not want it to be used unduly pedantically so as to exclude people from the labour market by making it, while theoretically possible, practically impossible for them to qualify for future employment.

Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I apologise for being late for the start of the Committee, Mr. Hood.

Unlike a number of Committee members, I am not an expert in these matters. Paragraph 4(1)(a) of schedule 1 refers to “prescribed cases”. Will the Minister clarify what could be classified as such a case?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I shall endeavour to respond to the points mentioned. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised some genuinely important points about the role of education, and the  importance of education in the skills and employment gaps, the income and wealth gaps, the opportunity gap, and in all the other differentials that we know have been endemic in our society for many decades. Education is the key part of that. When we examine social mobility, we see that the first factor to make a big impact is childhood and family poverty, which we have already considered in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Windsor, and which we may have a further opportunity to discuss. The second is the role of the family, social networks and the social capital that families can provide. The third is education, and predominantly primary education. Although the context of the Bill is later years, primary education and early years education is one of the key three drivers of social mobility and the transformation of life chances, so the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue.

The hon. Member for Daventry drew on both his current involvement in education and his distinguished career as a higher education Minister. He will recall that we have spoken about this before, but during a previous life I served as the president of the National Union of Students for the UK. He was one of the few Ministers whom we looked forward to meeting, because he was always willing to enter into a conversation—there was a dialogue, not a diatribe. I hope that he does not mind my saying that he was a new Conservative before being one became this year’s vogue.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

The Minister might be in danger of inadvertently breaking up this afternoon’s friendly consensus by suggesting that the modern compassionate Conservative party is a vogue, when it is in fact much more fundamental than that.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

Mr. Hood—

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

Yes, I am about to rule you out of order.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I have not said anything yet. All I can say is that we are judged by our actions as well as our words. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey has not been here long enough to vote against the new deal, tax credits or all the investments that have helped to drive our labour market interventions, which make some of the Bill entirely possible.

To return to the point that the hon. Member for Daventry and others made, my experience is not based on statistical analysis or the fact that I was the president of the NUS. I went back to a further education college—Cardonald college, on the south side of Glasgow—to have another shot at doing my school qualifications part-time, and I remember the sheer diversity of that college, in the mid-’80s. Further education has played an enormous role, and will continue to do so, in supporting people from all sorts of backgrounds, particularly those with a disability and a fluctuating mental health condition. I think back to that time, when the college played a remarkable role in trying to intervene and improve people’s lives. Further education is not all about basket weaving or recreational Japanese, as the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, speaking for the new Conservative party, belatedly acknowledges.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

I am just going to bring the Minister back to the debate for a moment. He mentioned disability, and one of the concerns, which I am sure he will be able to address quickly, is that the draft regulations, which he kindly sent to us before the Committee started, have not been published in an accessible format. I wonder whether he could look into that, because we have received indications that his Department was unwilling to publish the draft regulations in an accessible format. I am sure that that was an oversight, the simple reason being that the whole Committee depends very much on the input of disability organisations, with disabled people giving an important part of that feedback. We would not want not to have that feedback on the draft regulations.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that we must ensure a diversity of feedback. If the point that he raises is genuine, I will of course look into it.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

On that point, the publication of the Green Paper in an accessible form was delayed, so we are not suggesting for a minute that the Department is not aware of the issues. I received complaints that an accessible form of Green Paper was not available at the time that everyone else had it, so perhaps the Minister could share his thoughts on that.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I have already offered my thoughts on it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we extended the consultation period on the Green Paper for that very reason. That was the reasonable thing to do at the time. Of course we as a Government and all public agencies must continually find ways to ensure that our communications, our conversations, our websites and our electronic communications touch the lives of people, regardless of their experience and background.

Returning to the point about education, I should stress that education in its various forms will be an important part of work-related activity as envisaged in the Bill. The chance to reskill and retrain would be an important part of work-related activity. It is our intention to bring forward into the contributory and income-related allowances the corresponding provisions from incapacity benefit and income support. These rules currently mean that where someone has been sick or disabled for more than 28 weeks they will normally be able to claim income-related benefit while in full-time education. The Bill, as drafted, would allow us to maintain the current position and we intend to do just that.

The rules are intended to draw a distinction between short-term sickness while in education, and education while in a period of long-term sickness or disability. The Bill as currently drafted allows us the flexibility to accommodate changes in the way that education is provided and studies are funded. I realise that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey was a probing amendment, so I will not make a substantial point about it. However, it takes away some of that flexibility by seeking to insert “full time” before “education”.

The nature of income-related benefits is such that they need to take account of other support that is available to people. That is why the provision relating to the income-related strand of the benefit does not specify that it is full-time education that is incompatible with receiving the benefit. We have a provision allowing us to define the meaning of “education” in regulations, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

We also want people to undertake education in respect of work-related activity, and if necessary we can make adjustments to the rules through regulations to ensure that the interface between education and work-related activity is fit for purpose and makes possible the type of thing that we all wish to see which we have already mentioned today. I think that is the point that the hon. Member for Daventry wanted me to address.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

The Minister said that that flexibility applies to people on the income-related part of the ESA. Should that flexibility not also apply to people on the contributions-related part? For example, if someone with acquired brain injury from a very bad car crash goes on a course, it might be a stepping-stone towards part-time education and then full-time education. He or she may well be on the contributions-based element of the ESA rather than the income-related one. Should that flexibility not also apply to such a person?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises a reasonable point. We can continue our conversation about who has access to what aspect of education and whether it is income-related or contributory. The important point, which I made in my response to the hon. Member for Daventry, is that we will take the flexibility to ensure that the regulations can evolve through time in response to the changing nature of education and the changing opportunities in information technology and the changing demands of the customers of ESA, in terms of their educational aspirations.

The regulations will set out in more detail the policy, but the current definitions of education for income support are in regulations and we will bring forward what is currently in income support regulations, for example, in schedule 1. How will students be identified as qualifying for income-related ESA while studying full-time? We will define that in regulations. There will be consultation with the organisations that one would expect about the draft regulations which will be entirely appropriate. But we intend to bring forward the same definitions as currently apply to disabled students. I think that will reassure the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he raised.

As I said this morning, Mr. Hood, our officials often write excellently drafted and crafted speeches and they also write excellently drafted and crafted paragraphs. I shall share one with the Committee and then explain what I think it means. Paragraph 6(4) of schedule 1 provides that we can treat a claimant as being in education when they are not and a claimant who is in education as if they are not. I was puzzled by that. To pre-empt questions from hon. Members, the paragraph is what is generally regarded as a training provision and is standard in social security legislation.

Again, to reassure hon. Members, if someone is in education but we want to treat them as though they are not, so that they can still claim income-related allowances, the power in the paragraph enables us to do so. For example, if they are undertaking approved training to enable them to evolve their skills and career we would define them as not being in education for the purposes of those ESA contributions. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.

Specifically on the points raised about prescribed places, I am advised that we shall stipulate in regulations, following consultation, exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) asked about. I would be happy to see her take part in the conversation about how we get those regulations just right.

With that, I encourage the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, in the spirit in which he tabled them, to consider withdrawing his probing amendments. If there are additional specifics that need discussing, we can continue that conversation as we consider the drafting of the regulations to which I have already alluded.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply; it reassured me on almost all my points, so I shall not press any of my amendments.

The Minister did not, however, answer my question about fee reductions and waivers. Although he might not have an answer now—I see from his expression that he might not—I should be grateful if he would give the matter further consideration because it is important to ESA recipients given the additional cost of some educational provision, particularly that which might not be counted as work-related activity in the way that he described. It would be useful to have some reassurance that the Minister at least will consider what can be done about that.

In relation to the contributory part of the allowance, I note that paragraph 4(1) of schedule 1 on conditions relating to youth reads:

“The third condition is that...he is not receiving full-time education”.

Again, perhaps the Minister will reflect on that in relation to the contributory part of the allowance.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.