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

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 3, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

‘(e) make provision for the disregard of payments made in accordance with subsection (1)(c)’.

The amendment relates to an issue that we touched upon earlier this morning. It is about the need to encourage disabled people to take part in public life, particularly through appointments to or elected offices in local government. I seek to clarify the Government’s intentions towards the treatment of any income or expenses payable to people engaged in public appointments, for example as local councillors or in similar roles. I shall be grateful for the Minister’s response to these points.

Under the rules on incapacity benefit, any work that is done in the role of local authority councillor is disregarded when deciding whether someone is incapable of work. Councillors’ allowances are taken into account, and they reduce the amount of benefit payable if they exceed the earnings limit of £86 a week. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions, particularly in relation to whether existing provisions for incapacity benefit for councillors will be carried over into both components of ESA, whether income-related or contribution-related?

I shall be grateful if the Minister will also say whether the rules could be extended to a limited range of other public appointments, because participation in civic and community life can be important in increasing the opportunities for disabled people to make a recognised contribution, to interact with non-disabled people and to acquire new experience and confidence which may help them to find employment. On average, only 3 per cent. of appointees to public bodies are disabled. Real and perceived disincentives in the benefits system can prevent benefit recipients from contributing to society in that way. At the moment, for example, people who do so may feel that they risk being invited for another personal capability assessment which could then question their entitlement to benefit in the first place and benefit could cease if expenses in relation to public office amount to more than the permitted work limits per week.

I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify whether the current rules for councillors will apply under ESA and whether he will consider having further discussions about a limited range of additional public appointments to which similar rules apply for the purpose of ensuring that disabled people are not faced with further disincentives to take part in public life.

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

I think we can readily endorse both the spirit of the amendment and the way in which it has been moved. Many of us in different capacities have campaigned on and off on an all-party basis for greater involvement in public life by disabled people generally. The point is that not only is that part of their civil rights, but it is positively beneficial to the public good if there is active hands-on involvement.

I have a gloss on the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey about participation by disabled people in consultation or advisory exercises on behalf of public bodies. I do not want to rehearse or question your decision, Mr. Hood, but you will have noticed that we tabled new clause 7 on that point and it is germane to this debate. The issue involved the Disability Rights Commission and other disability bodies.

The problem is the overall fear that in some way people on employment and support allowance would be disqualified from participation in any public activity, whether as councillors, Members of Parliament if that were still possible—it is unlikely—or as consultees in a public exercise. A number of recent public measures—for example, on care standards—other related action in the health field, and the whole concept of the new provisions of the public duty on disability actively encourage participation, and those are exactly the people that we want to participate. The particular concerns set out in the new clause were, first, that people who participated as consultees should not, as a direct consequence, be treated as capable of work—that is directly analogous to the point made by the hon. Gentleman on public office.

There is the issue of recruitment of service users as consultees by public organisations. At the moment there is a difficulty, particularly for people on means-tested benefits, who are effectively excluded because there is a fear that they might lose those benefits. The problem is that that immediately skews the consultee sample because only the relatively better-off will be able to take their place as consultees.

There is also a question about preventing designated, reimbursed expenses incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily as a result of the involvement from being treated as income, so that they are not knocked off benefit.

Returning to the wider point and the fifth part of the new clause that we have tabled, there is a wish to ensure that some people will not be excluded from involvement as a result of benefit laws. The new clause would allow people simultaneously in receipt of the employment and support allowance to choose to volunteer their advice to public organisations. They would not get caught in what might be termed the “notional earnings trap”.

I have said enough to express some of the concerns that were set down in that new clause and they are entirely congruent with the concerns of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey in relation to public office. Nobody wants somebody to simultaneously claim this allowance and have a huge source of outside income through their public work. That is why, whatever the theoretical possibility, the MPs who are not actually working here—I think they are office holders for that purpose—could not claim the employment and support allowance simultaneously.

However, it is wrong, in the same breath, to make it impossible for people who can make a contribution—who are likely to be either in the work-related component or the support component—to make such a contribution. If we ask the people who know about it, we are likely to get a better answer than if we do not. If we exclude them by the way we set up the benefit rules, we are the losers too.

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

The amendment—as we heard in the reasonable explanation by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and the informed comments of the hon. Member for Daventry—seeks to create a power to disregard some payments that would otherwise be deducted from the contributory allowance by regulations under clause 3(1)(c). It might help the Committee if I explain how the Government intend to apply this provision and the type of payments we intend to apply it to.

I hope that the hon. Gentlemen have had the opportunity to read the note on page 13 of the draft regulations and supporting material booklet to show that our approach is not changing. The best example of that is one mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey in respect of the councillor’s allowance. Currently the rules for incapacity benefit recognise that an entitlement should not be lost just because someone carries out activities as a local councillor. The rules also recognise that there is a balance to be struck between allowing a person to take an active part in representing their community and protecting the public purse. That is why, as he fairly said, any councillors’ allowances that exceed £86 per week are deducted from a person’s incapacity benefit.

Those amounts do not include expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out their functions as councillors. Our intention is that the contributory ESA should apply those same rules to councillors and their  allowances. We will take the same approach across, including the disregard applied to reasonable expenses. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentlemen. We would do this through regulations under subsection (1)(c). The power in that provision refers to:

“payments of a prescribed description.”

That means that regulations could, for example, state that it is payments after deduction of expenses that are prescribed for the purposes of the deduction. We do not—and this is something that we can consider and reflect on in Parliament more generally—have any plans at this moment, as a matter of policy, to extend the deductions to anyone other than councillors. However, it is important to have the power contained in this clause which would enable that to take place, if that became the Government’s policy or any Government’s policy in the future.

Danny Alexanderrose—

Mr. Boswellrose—

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

The hon. Gentlemen can decide for themselves who will intervene first.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I would suggest that he has discussions with his other ministerial colleagues on this point because I can think of several other examples—such as participation on the board of a housing association—where this type of consideration might be usefully extended beyond councillors to people in that sort of role. Some community council involvement means that considerable amounts of time are spent on consultation; it is not just whether such work should be disregarded in deciding whether someone is entitled to benefit but also whether any expenses that might be received should also be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will take the matter further; I shall be happy to have further discussions with him outside this room.

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

I give way to the hon. Member for Daventry.

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

These serial interventions are becoming rather a habit. I reinforce that point for the Minister, not to prolong his response. The DRC and others have identified a potential problem for service users. I would emphasise that there is often the deterrent effect of the possibility that even when they are merely a reimbursement these payments might be taken into account or might in some way affect the benefit because the person will be judged to be capable of work. They are real concerns; I hope that the Minister will reflect on them and perhaps consider whether he can be a little more flexible without busting his budget in the process. I ask no more than that.

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

I would be happy to continue the conversation. I hope that in Inverness being invited outside the room has a different meaning from that in Glasgow.

As we seek to implement the ESA we must bear in mind the wider sense of work-related activity and the relationship with voluntary work. The Committee has not yet had the opportunity to discuss the role of voluntary work, which we will come to later. Perhaps at that point we will have a debate about what will be permissible under work-related activity in respect of the points that have been raised.

The power in subsection (1)(c) is important as it would allow the very thing that Opposition Members have sought to push us towards this evening. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey sought reassurance that the current arrangements will be carried forward, which is what we seek to do. In terms of how we go further, I make a commitment to continue our conversations on the matter in the context of allowing volunteering, permitted work and other issues which of course fall within the Bill. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.