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

I beg to move amendmentNo. 152, in page 7, line 10, leave out first ‘is’ and insert

‘and such other matters as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe’.

I understand that there will be a clause stand part debate, so my remarks on the amendment will be brief. Its purpose is to probe the Government’s thinking about the test of limited capability for work-related activity. The regulations make it clear that exemption from conditionality—in other words, from membership of the support group—will be a purely medical decision, rather than one that introduces any other, for example, social factors. It will be a purely medical decision based on an assessment of whether someone meets any one of the 46 descriptors.

Other factors might be worthy of consideration, and it would be useful if the Minister explained in more detail why the exemption from conditionality for the support group is based solely on medical criteria. What is the conception underlying the way in which the support component has been created? The amendment seeks to introduce a power to allow other factors,such as caring responsibilities, to be taken into account. Could they be introduced to decisions about the support component? Although they are outsidethe descriptors, the amendment would allow for the introduction of a social model and take account ofthe wider barriers to employment that people in the support group might face. If such factors cannot be taken into account in considering someone’s entitlement to membership of the support group, will the regulations ensure that other matters such as caring responsibilities can be considered when deciding whether someone entitled to the work-related activity component will be subject to conditionality, whether that be membership of the support group or work-related activity?

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

I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point; as he said, we might have a stand part debate—with your permission, Mr. Amess. As he knows, clause 9 provides that the question whether a person’s capability for work-related activity is limited by his physical or mental condition, and if so, whether the limitation would make it unreasonable to require him to undertake such activity, is to be determined in regulations. As the Committee knows, I published a draft of those regulations two weeks ago on the day when the Committee of Selection met.

Our belief that work is a right underpins much of the Committee’s deliberations and was behind the genesis of the Bill. However, we recognise that for some, work is simply not possible. The support group has been created for individuals whose functional limitation is such that it would be unreasonable to require them to engage in work-related activity. As I have said, and as hon. Members have mentioned, that will be based on falling under one of the 46 listed descriptors provided to the Committee in regulation 3 of the draft regulations. Other non-medical circumstances such as caring responsibilities might make it difficult for ESA customers to engage in work-focused interviews or undertake work-related activity, but it would not be appropriate to place such factors on a prescriptive list in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

The Committee has been provided with a copy of the draft regulations on work-focused interviews, which will allow a personal adviser to defer an interview if he or she considers that it would not assist the person in question or be appropriate in the circumstances.  Personal advisers will be able to take into account non-medical issues such as transport difficulties, caring responsibilities or bereavement when making a decision on deferrals. So although I could not give the hon. Gentleman much comfort in our earlier debate on what he described as a social model of assessment, I hope that the additional paperwork that has been provided reassures him that deferrals can take place on the bases that I have mentioned.

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

The Minister will know that 10 per cent. of the 6 million carers are themselves disabled. If I understand his logic correctly, he is saying that personal advisers will be able to take account of that situation when considering whether to defer the requirement of work-related activity. Will he put himself in the shoes of a disabled person who, for example, cares for a disabled child? Simply deferring the obligation to participate in such activity is not adequate for someone in that situation. They simply do not have time to work, and it would be completely unrealistic to expect them to do so. Is there no possibility of greater flexibility so that in such a situation a person’s obligation to participate could be put on hold more permanently?

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

The length of time taken to grant a deferral will be a matter for the personal adviser. We are not talking about a day, a week or a month; it could be much longer than that. I think that there is unanimity about the idea that—except on medical grounds relating to access to a support group, although even then, those involved would be entitled to volunteer—the state and the Government should not be able to write anyone off by accident or design. In the scenario described by the hon. Gentleman, a deferral could be very long term; it would not be a case of “Please come back tomorrow.” It would clearly be inappropriate to request that someone undertake a work-focused interview or work-related activity in that scenario or in many of the others of which we are aware from our constituencies. That would be counter-productive and would add to the difficulties that people were experiencing, rather than doing what the Bill and the regulations are intended to do, which is, where possible, to lift the difficulties that people experience in getting closer to the labour market. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Wayne David (Caerphilly, Labour)

The Minister will be aware that mental health organisations have expressed some concern about this issue. What might happen, for example, to an individual who had attempted to commit suicide? What flexibility might be introduced in those circumstances?

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

We are suggesting all sorts of flexibilities in the draft regulations, but we do not wish to be prescriptive and to say, “This is the exhaustive list.” I am not sure that this will enlighten my hon. Friend, but some of the provisions are taken from paragraph 35 of the current decision makers guide, and, even there, the list is not exhaustive. The guide refers to what constitutes a good cause for not meeting  some of the conditionality in terms of, for example, medical appointments, caring responsibilities and religious adherence.

On the specific point about someone who has attempted suicide, my hon. Friend will accept that people attempt that dramatic act for all sorts of reasons, including low esteem and a sense of worthlessness. Although he is not suggesting this, others have suggested that we automatically passport into a support group everyone who has attempted suicide for whatever reason. Such people would not automatically be entitled to condition management, work-focused interviews and the chance to get closer to the labour market again. The Government have a sense that that is not the right way to support someone in those circumstances.

When the work-focused interview and work-related activity would add to the complications and the pressure that a person felt, there would of course be a deferral. However, it would be wrong to say that we should put everyone into the support group, regardless of the reason why they had attempted suicide, and particularly when the pressure on a person had built up because of long-term unemployment, material poverty, their perception of their wider role in the world and of their inability to support themselves and their family, and their sense of worthlessness. In cases where it would help, we need to afford such people the support of work-focused interviews to try to get them back to the labour market. In cases where it would not help, there would be a deferral, and we would not seek at any point to add to the difficulties that somebody already faced.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and particularly for clarifying the circumstances in which a work-focused interview—and, therefore, the degree to which a person who is not in the support group is subject to conditionality—can be deferred. The Minister has introduced a valuable concept into the discussion, and we might wish to probe it in much more detail on further clauses. For the time being, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendmentNo. 153, in clause 9, page 7, line 37, at end insert

‘and the safeguards that shall be applied when determining such matters’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 155, in clause 10, page 8, line 27, after ‘failure’, insert

‘and the safeguards that shall be applied when determining such matters’.

No. 173, in clause 17, page 15, line 2, at end add—

‘(c) safeguards that shall be applied when determining such matters.’.

No. 260, in clause 17, page 15, line 2, at end add—

‘(4) The circumstances which may be prescribed in section 17(3)(b) should include, but need not be restricted to, the person’s mental or physical condition.’.

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

This group of amendments relates to safeguards and the power to determine what safeguards may apply. Amendment No. 153 concerns clause 9 and the other amendments relate to other clauses. They are designed to probe in more detail the Government’s intentions regarding the provision of safeguards, particularly in relation to clause 9 and the assessments of people’s capability for work-related activity.

Elsewhere in the benefits and social security system, variation is allowed in what Ministers consider to be “good cause”. By tabling my amendments and for the Committee’s benefit, I ask the Minister to explain in more detail certain points regarding, for instance, the acts or omissions to be covered, the judgment of acts or omissions being considered, particularly in relation to decisions about information provided by an individual, and the judgment of whether someone had good cause when unavailable for their limited capability for work-related activity assessment. Will that decision be left to the decision makers? To what extent is it envisioned that external contractors will have the power to exercise that judgment?

Other issues fall within the scope of the amendments. They relate to the period in which benefit claims for the support component can be backdated. For example, if someone has good cause for being unavailable for an assessment, or for not providing the required information in a timely fashion and, as a result, a period elapses longer than the 13 weeks envisioned, what will the rules be on the backdating of those claims, if it is decided eventually that that person is entitled to the support component?

Last week, we debated appeals and the need for an appeals process. The Minister was generally reassuring in his response in that debate. However, how will a case in which a decision about good cause has been made be treated in the appeals process? Again, if someone has good cause for any act or omission in relation to those assessments, to what extent will their right of appeal be affected? Would that right be unfettered? Indeed, will that person have the right of appeal against a decision that might suggest that they did not have good cause for an act or omission? I know that that sounds slightly technical, but it is important to clarify those points and so I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are intended to probe the Government’s intentions, as he said, and I can reassure him on a specific point: if someone’s entitlement to a support group has been rejected on the basis that, on assessment, they failed to meet one of the 46 descriptors, but on appeal it is found that that decision was incorrect, the ESA entitlement at the support group level will of course be reinstated and backdated to the start of the 14th week—the end of the 13-week assessment period. I hope that that reassures him.

As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 9 gives us powers to make regulations treating customers as not having limited capability for work-related activity, if they have failed without good cause to provide information or undergo a medical examination that they were asked to attend. However, we recognise the importance of ensuring that customers are not unfairly penalised if they have good reason for failing to undertake such an assessment.

Current legislation relating to incapacity benefit sets out the matters to be taken into account when determining whether a customer has shown good cause for failure to attend a medical examination to assess incapacity for work. Published guidance provides advice to the Department’s decision makers—I have referred to that in response to an intervention bymy hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)—on the steps to be taken to establish whether there is good cause.

We intend to follow the same approach under ESA. The draft regulations under clause 9, which the Committee has seen, set out the matters to be taken into account when determining whether a customer has shown good cause. As I mentioned, it is not an exhaustive list, because such an approach would be impractical and would not allow us the opportunity to innovate and be flexible, either nationally or at a local level. As we introduce ESA, it is important that we are able to adjust what constitutes good cause based on our experiences both from pathways and, from 2008 onwards, from the national introduction of ESA.

Amendment No. 155 was tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. Regulations under clause 10, which we will come to next, will set out what matters are to be taken into account when determining whether a customer has shown good cause for failure to take part in a work-focused health-related assessment. They will include taking into account the nature of the customer’s disability and his state of health at the time. I alluded in a previous debate to the fact that customers will have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against a decision that they failed to take part in a work-focused health-related assessment without good cause.

I turn to amendments Nos. 173 and 260. In clause 17, we are taking powers to disqualify a customer from ESA. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that there are already considerable safeguards in place as part of the disqualification decision-making process. First, a customer will be given the opportunity to explain why he has behaved in the way in which he has, and evidence will then be considered by the decision maker. The decision maker will also need to consider any other available evidence.

In considering the evidence, the decision maker will have to consider whether the customer has good cause for not complying, and must take into account certain prescribed factors and disregard others in accordance with the regulations. A decision maker will be able to take into account any factor that he considers relevant, including the state of a person’s mental and physical health. We follow the same practice under the current IB regime.

We recognise the particular difficulties that people with mental health conditions might face in complying with requests. We will ensure that a decision is not taken to penalise any person with a mental health condition or learning disability without contact having first been made with them, or their carer or healthcare team.

If the decision maker decides that a person is tobe disqualified, that person will, as I have already committed, have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. I assure the Committee that there will be  adequate training for our staff and that safeguards will be put in place, meaning that customers will always be given opportunities to explain their actions before any disqualification occurs. It is important to mention that. I hope that my comments reassure the hon. Gentleman on the specific points that he has raised.

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

The Minister has raised some points that we might want to take up in the debate on later clauses, but for the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end add—

‘(5) Regulations under subsection (1) shall—

(a) ensure the full programme of work focused interviews is offered to those in the support group who indicate a desire to take part in these aspects of the programme,

(b) not penalise those persons for failing to participate in these activities, and

(c) treat engagement in—

(i) part time work,

(ii) voluntary work,

(iii) training courses, and

(iv) community activities

as valid outcomes from the work focused interview process that would not automatically lead to a suspension of payment of the employment and support allowance.’.

The amendment is one of the most important that Conservative Members will ask the Committee to consider. I should remind hon. Members that the explanatory notes state that

“the Government’s intention is that those receiving the support component should be able to volunteer to take part in”

work-related activity

“if they wish to do so.”

Despite the Government’s best intentions, the Bill fails to offer a realistic option of work-related activity to the most severely disabled.

We have had discussions this morning about how eligibility for entry into the support group is decided. We talked about the 46 descriptors. I do not want to read them all out, but perhaps I may remind the Committee of one or two, just so that all hon. Members will have in mind who precisely is meant. The category, for example, entitled “Walking or moving on level ground” relates to people who are not able manually to propel a wheelchair

“more than 30 metres without repeatedly stopping, experiencing breathlessness or severe discomfort.”

“Manual dexterity” relates to someone who cannot

“pick up a £1 coin or equivalent with either hand.”

The category of “Continence” relates to someone with

“no voluntary control over bowel evacuation”,

and the category on cleaning includes someone who cannot clean their own torso without receiving physical  assistance from another person. The heading “Conveying food or drink to his mouth” includes someone who

“cannot convey food or drink to his mouth without receiving physical assistance from another person”.

Finally, as to learning disabilities and, potentially, mental illness, the list includes reference to someone who

“cannot initiate and sustain basic personal action, for example, the organisation and completion of a simple task, without regular prompting and supervision given by a person in the presence of the claimant”.

What we are really talking about, as the Minister has said many times, is someone who conforms to just one of the 46 descriptors. We are talking about people for whom it is unrealistic to expect that it will be easy to move towards a full-time job—people who might require massive amounts of coaching even to be able to get a part-time job. It may even never be realistic to expect them to go into full-time employment. We are therefore talking about not only the most vulnerable people but the people furthest from the labour market.

I have said to the Committee before that the Opposition hope that the Bill can be as bold for members of the support group as it can for members of the work-related activity group. The Secretary of State confirmed the comments in the notes during the debate in the House on 24 July. He also said clearly that he wanted people in the support group to be able to

“access all the appropriate support available”—[Official Report, 24 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 623.]

I should have been very happy with that statement if he had left off the word “available” and said that he wanted everyone in the group to be able to access all the appropriate support, but his use of that word gives rise to some concern. [Interruption.]—I hear mutterings from a sedentary position and I do not suggest that there was any intention to use words carefully, but I am concerned about whether the appropriate support will be available for people in the support group.

The amendment would simply ensure that the Bill lived up to the promises made by the Secretary of State. It would, first, make it a statutory obligation—not just a Government intention—for the work-related activity component to be available for members of the support group. It would clearly make participation voluntary, because the Committee has agreed that any sanctions or compulsions would be totally inappropriate for that group. However, to make the arrangement realistic, we must accept that the outcome of the work-related activity process for members of the support group may not be a full-time job. It could be a part-time job, or voluntary work. It could be going on a training course or involvement in community activities.

When we carefully observe this most vulnerable group, real concerns arise that the general tenor of the rest of the Bill could send conflicting signals. I shall just read a sentence from page 123 of the excellent book by the Child Poverty Action Group called“A Route out of Poverty?”

“We are concerned that the Government’s focus on the merits of paid work, which has dominated policy since 1997, makes people who are not in it feel worthless. Much more emphasis  should be placed on the contribution and participation of disabled people, irrespective of their ability to access paid employment. Many disabled people work as volunteers or carers, or run service user groups, yet are deemed to be out of work because they are not being paid. The Green Paper with its focus on drawing people into employment may perpetuate entrenched stereotypes.”

If the Government are to deliver on their intentions for the support group, a variety of outcomes is essential for the pathways to work programme involving part-time work, voluntary work, community activities and education. Last week, the Minister said that he recognised that that could be the case for education, and that:

“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.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A 17 October 2006; c. 51.]

I think the Minister understands the direction ofmy thinking on these issues, but I have a couple of concerns. The first is whether the pathways programme has the necessary resourcing to provide adequate support for people on the support component. Citizens Advice, for example, said that it has

“great concerns that the £360 million will not be sufficient to provide the same level of support, and the same range of opportunities, currently available to clients in Pathways areas.”

It makes that comment about everyone, whether they go into a work-related activity group or the support group. If there is a resource constraint for people in the work-related activity group, which is the less resource-intensive of the two groups, it will be doubly the case for those in the support group.

Finance may be a consideration because every Government must operate within financial constraints and if finance is the reason, I should be grateful if the Minister would come clean and say so. It is important when considering the support group to avoid false economies when it comes to cost. Yesterday, I was in Sheffield visiting an excellent organisation called Dimensions UK. I met the chief executive, David Wolverson, who told me an interesting story about one of his clients—I shall call him Dave. Dave has learning difficulties and has twice tried to live independently, but failed. He had to have people sleeping in with him overnight but during an 18-month period, with coaching from Dimensions UK, he was weaned off the necessity of having someone sleeping in with him overnight. I am sure that that process was expensive, but it was a big lifestyle change for Dave, who said, “I have no bloody staff here, so I can have a party.” It was a big change for him not having to have someone sleeping in with him, but it was also a bit lonely for him and he needed a lot of support. The crucial point is that the cost of having sleep-in staff is well in excess of £150 a week, but the cost of what he has now—an on-call system—is only £7 a week. Helping and supporting people to live independently results in a huge reduction in cost to taxpayers.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

That story is inspiring and the gentleman concerned is obviously inspirational. However, does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is practical and appropriate to allocate a sum of money to cover everyone who might be in a support group? Has he considered how that could be costed and has he  also considered that there might be a better way in the voluntary and other sectors to support someone who is not yet ready even for a work-focused interview other than through a mechanistic approach under the Bill?

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

As ever, the hon. Lady makes an important point. I am not suggesting that the provisions under the support component of the Bill are the only solution or the only way forward for such people. I am concerned about simply putting a line in the explanatory notes saying that the work-related activity component will be very good, that we have seen how it works with the pathways programme and that anyone else with more severe disabilities can volunteer for it if they want. I am concerned that that does not give true access to people in that group. The point about disability is that if we want to move to equality for disabled people, we must be proactive. It is a question not simply of eliminating prejudice, as with racial discrimination, but of taking proactive steps that make equality a reality. There will not be no statutory right: the explanatory notes say that such provision is the Government’s intention. Saying that the most severely disabled people can volunteer to be part of the support group will not help them as much as they need to be helped.

I shall illustrate my point, because there is a particular issue about part-time work. For many of the most severely disabled people, the most realistic outcome of any effective programme is to go into part-time work. They may volunteer first, as a stepping-stone. If they can move into full-time work, it is likely that part-time work will be a vital stepping-stone.

Yesterday I met a cleaner with learning disabilities, but they will not be able to do a full-time cleaning job straight away, so they have started by doing a couple of days a week and seeing how it goes. The benefits system makes that very difficult, because the moment one gets a part-time job working mornings, for example, one risks losing one’s entire benefits package, which is scary. We are asking someone who is vulnerable anyway to take a huge risk. Add to that the fear that the job may not work out, and that they may not know about the linking rules, and we are making it difficult for them.

I am not arguing that part-time work has to be a valid outcome for all people who participate in pathways to work; I am asking whether the Government will consider making it a valid outcome of the programmes for people who go on to the support element. In their case, it might be the most realistic outcome and a stepping-stone to full-time work, too.

Last week I raised a concern that by giving members of the support group a higher level of benefit, which everyone present supports in principle, there may be a danger that people will not want to leave the support group, because moving into the work-related activity component could mean a reduction in their benefit. The Minister’s response was that

“we would say that the person could keep the higher rate of benefit so that there were no perverse incentives to stay in the support group: they can keep the higher rate of benefit without going through the conditionality.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 October 2006; c. 66.]

However, on page 8 of the regulations, a case study of “Sarah”, who is on the support component, says:

“Her condition gradually improves, and...she is assessed as not having limited capability for work-related activity. This means she moves into the work-related activity group which has the effect of a small reduction in her benefit.”

The regulations appear directly to contradict the Minister’s assurance that people will be able to move from the support element to the work-related activity element. I may have misunderstood them, but I should be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

With the amendment, I am saying it is important that, if we can, we use the Bill to give the same opportunities to people with severe disabilities, particularly people with learning disabilities, as we give everyone else. The paper, “Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century” talks about getting 30 per cent. of people with learning disabilities into the labour market. The figure is currently much lower. In that spirit, I hope that we can amend the Bill, so that we have legislation giving those most vulnerable people the same opportunity to take the next step forward in their life as we seek to create for those people with less severe disabilities.

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

I shall make a brief speech this time rather than a long intervention. The comments of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey were interesting. Sheffield Dave seems to embody the purpose of the Bill. We should stop writing people off. We should stop using the list system—listing all the things that make one incapable of working—and look instead at what a person is capable of doing. Having someone front-ending the investment, so that Sheffield Dave can in the end sleep by himself and may one day take part in some kind of work-related activity, is exactly what we want to achieve. It is very important to keep that element of the Bill as it is.

The difference between the support group and the work-related activity group is also important. I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister may say in response, but one pay-off of the Bill for those who move to the support group is that they will get a much higher level of support and benefit. Everyone appreciates that those on benefit are poor. Fundamental to the Bill is the fact that we want to get people off benefit and into some kind of work or work-related activity, not only to make them better off financially but because it will enrich their life—just as Sheffield Dave’s life was enriched.

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

My point is precisely as the hon. Lady says, but I am concerned that the Bill will not achieve that. Those people put into the support element will receive a higher level of benefit. Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the aspirations that she and I have for that most vulnerable group will not be met unless a wide range of outcomes are permitted, and not only full-time employment?

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on, but I return to the point that I made earlier. We are trying to provide an enormous range or menu of options, and not only through Jobcentre Plus. That  is the gateway, but engaging all the volunteer and private sector organisations, as the hon. Gentleman saw in Sheffield, can help ensure that people’s capabilities, whatever they are able to do, are best identified and properly exploited. They can then go and do whatever it is that they are able to do and want to do. Once they are on that virtuous ladder, perhaps with support and training, and with the expertise accessed through the Jobcentre Plus gateway, they will be able to develop and engage more constructively in the labour market.

The bottom line is not to move every person now on incapacity benefit into work. That is a million miles away from what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. We want to give people support and the opportunity to move off benefits into some kind of work-related activity. It is important that we should use the phrase “work-related activity” rather than work; again, it is fundamental to our case. I look forward to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey withdrawing the amendment.

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

I am delighted, as always, to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire; her comments, shared by those on all sides, about not writing anyone off were absolutely right. We had a political discussion earlier about the point, but whatever the merits of the support offered by this or previous Governments, too many people have been written off for too long. It is important that we change that culture for good.

I am not convinced by the amendment—it is not exactly how I would seek to make the change—but the hon. Member for South-West Surrey none the less raises an important point. He and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire made it clear—I think it needs to be made clear in the Bill—that assistance such as work-focused interviews should be available to any member of the support group who wants it. That is the point that has been made in this debate. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it is not made clear in the Bill, although it is made clear in his remarks, the explanatory notes and so on. The Bill could allow a less well disposed future Government, or this Government in one of their less well disposed frames of mind, to decide—

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

What interest would any Government, now or in the future, have in not enabling people in the support group to access work-related activities or anything else?

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

I find it difficult enough to get myself into the frame of mind of other political parties as it is, without wishing to speculate as to their future motives. I shall not follow the line of argument down which the hon. Lady invites me.

I would like it to be made clear in the Bill that the support available to anyone on the work-related activity component will be available also to anyone on the support component who wishes to access it, free from the conditionality regime that would apply to the work-related activity group. For reasons that have been mentioned, it is critical that that support be available, and I know that the Government intend to make it  available. I am not querying the Minister’s good intentions, but that needs to be made more explicit.

That need is important particularly for the reason articulated by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, which I have also mentioned to the Committee and probably will again: the amount of funding that has been allocated for the roll-out of pathways to work across the country. The Minister may feel a bit hamstrung, because he is doubtless engaged in debates with the Treasury on how much he should get for rolling out pathways in the comprehensive spending review. I share the concern expressed by Citizens Advice and others that the £360 million that has so far been allocated for the Bill will be insufficient even for dealing with the needs of new claimants, let alone those of people already on support who wish to access it in future. We do not even know whether all that money will be spent on the roll-out of pathways to work. In answering a question that I asked in the House, the Secretary of State could say only that the lion’s share—a term that I do not believe is defined by the Treasury—would be used for pathways to work.

I do not know where the statistic comes from, but surveys are often said to show that 1 million people who are currently on incapacity benefit wish to work. We do not know, and I would not wish to prejudge, how many of them will be entitled to the new support component when migration takes place. I would like to think that every one of those people who wished to access the help available under pathways to work would be able to do so straight away without any constraints on the availability of support. Will the Minister make clear the position on that matter?

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

I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. We have had a good debate, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey said, this amendment is important to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I wish to make two points and ask one question, all of which relate directly to the amendment.

We must refer to the evaluation by the Department for Work and Pensions of the experience of incapacity benefit personal advisers in pathways. The Department’s own research has found that some personal advisers have reported a worrying tension between the need to give tailored support to those who receive the support element and wish to volunteer for work-related activity and the desire to hit targets and get the “quick wins”. Those are the words in the Department’s report, Mr. Amess; you would not expect me to use pejorative language. The desire of an IBPA to help his client is logical and understandable, but at the same time he knows that he has targets to meet. The Department’s research reports in 2004 and 2005, each entitled “Incapacity Benefit Reforms—the Personal Adviser Role & Practices”, indicated a difference in how different personal advisers reacted to different clients. It was stated that there were variations

“in the extent to which IBPAs were willing to persist with...‘difficult’ customers.”

Sometimes they felt that they needed permission from their managers to spend extra time on what will be the support element segment of clients.

Amendment No. 227 argues for a regime where there is resourcing in respect of everyone in the support element who wishes to try work-related activity—my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned that issue. The burden of my argument also relates to a cultural shift on the part of all personal advisers. This will extend to any advisers who work in the private sector or in not-for-profit charitable sector organisations who might deliver the roll-out of pathways and the new regime. Someone in the support component element would be under no obligation, because in the test in clause 9 they have demonstrated that they are further away from work, but they might want to make an effort and volunteer for work-related activity, even though the legislation does not require them to do so. They must be looked at through the prism that they should be supported and resourced. They should not be treated, as some of the evidence in these reports suggests they are being, as being more difficult to help—I would not use the term “easy wins”—where people say, “We will support those who are nearer the world of work and are more work ready.” I hate to use a colourful word, but there cannot be any apartheid between the support element and those in the work-related activity component.

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

I promise that this is my last intervention. I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the concept of the support group. It is not a passive parking place for people who are more severely disabled or unable to work. It is an active group that will still be encouraged to move into the work-related activity group.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have not misunderstood the concept; the entire burden of the amendment argues for her point. Those in the support group must be encouraged more than ever before under the pathways and previous regimes to have the opportunity to access the work-related activities, which are the right of those in the work-related activity component. They are not a right in the same way for those in the support component, because under the conditionality they are not required to engage in work-related activity. I hope that she accepts that the provisions suggest that although the support component contains those who wish to migrate to the work-related activity component, it is not obvious that that will be fully resourced because it is voluntary. People might not want to do that—[Interruption.]

The Minister from a sedentary position talks about resourcing. That is the burden of the argument made by Citizens Advice and many other outside organisations: the £360 million for the roll-out of pathways to 2008 might not be enough to cater fully for all those in the support group who want to migrate on to the work-related activity, which is more resource-intensive, as we all know.

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

In response to the earlier intervention, no one is denying what the intention of the Bill is. Our concern is the practice, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. Does he agree that one of the particular  causes of concern was the DWP’s own research in 2005 on personal advisers? The suggestion has been made that

“there is a danger that increasing the weight placed on early job entry targets in the future might lead them to focus on the ‘quick wins’ versus those who really benefit from the pilots.”

Are we not really arguing that we precisely do not want people in the support element of the component to end up being parked while the whole focus of people working to quite tight contracts is on getting people into jobs when that might not be an option?

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

I am grateful for that intervention. We all agree here. It is a question of teasing out an understanding that the £360 million or perhaps even greater resources will be adequate to fund everyone in the support group who might want to volunteer for work-related activity, which, under the provision as drafted, they are under no obligation to do. An interesting question is how many will wish to volunteer for the work-related activity and whether that is resourced.

My final point relates to access to work. One of the many active labour market programmes that might be relevant to getting those in the support group to work-related activity and making it successful for them is access to work. This is not the place to have the debate about that very good programme, which is popular with those employers who know about it. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is responsible for that programme, understands what good value for money it represents in public spending terms. It is not just me saying that, but Citizens Advice, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and many others.

I have one question about access to work which bears on the amendment. It is my understanding that access-to-work funding is not available to those undertaking voluntary work. Voluntary work could be part of the work-related activity that support component customers might want to do. Therefore, those who wish to undertake such work-related activity seem to be at a disadvantage—access-to-work funding will not be available to them. I understand historically why that is the case, but if such funding is not available for those who want to go from the support component to work-related activity, can either Minister tell us whether there is anything commensurate to help them? Are there any pots of money and Government programmes that might meet the needs of people who wish to do voluntary activity, but who are not required to do it under the clause because they are in the support component? For them, an access to work-style programme may be particularly helpful.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. I am concerned about the amendment for a number of reasons. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly pointed out the fact that a cultural shift has taken place over a number of decades. To answer my hon. Friend the Memberfor North-East Derbyshire, there are different circumstances in which Governments may seek, for whatever reason, to use a group of unemployed people. During periods of high unemployment, low economic  activity overall and general economic decline, it is not uncommon for Governments to use, to take a Marxist analysis, a reserve army of the work force. It is not an unfamiliar concept.

We have to look at how the cultural shift has come about and why it is important to revisit what we can do for people. We are in a different economic environment now and I hope that that will continue for many years. Nevertheless, circumstances change. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds describes some people in some departments, some of whom might work in Jobcentre Plus and some in the voluntary sector, whose attitudes and approaches to clients have had to change in those periods. We cannot take a single day and say that it demonstrates how all people operate with all clients, because it simply is not true. From that point and following new experiences, people do change their approach to clients. That is a rather slow but necessary process.

We must also take into account the attitude of the people who are being assessed, in whose interests we are trying to form the legislation. Opposition Members have moved some way from what was deemed to be the proper way to deal with people, and I welcome the way in which they now look at things, but we have to be realistic and set measures in the context of the real world and what real people do.

The inspirational argument about “Sheffield Dave”, who will for ever more be known by that name, illustrates a certain point about how people can develop, but using the amendment as a way to deal with Sheffield Dave is problematic. On the one hand, we can say that the current system is providing for Sheffield Dave, although perhaps not for people in all places: it might be that Sheffield is particularly fortunate, or that some facilities are available in metropolitan areas but not in rural areas. That is another matter to consider. How on earth do we make exactly what is available in Sheffield available in Slaithwaite, the village where I live? Whether that would be the best way to spend resources is an argument that we could properly have, but what concerns me more is whether Slaithwaite Dave’s experience of life is the same as Sheffield Dave’s, and whether some people, unlike Sheffield Dave, have a longer journey to travel.

In my experience, if the Bill says simply that a right could be imposed, which sounds like a cosy and supportive way of dealing with things, people will soon think that they have a duty. When structuring legislation, we have to be careful to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

Mr. Huntrose—

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

I can see that the hon. Gentleman is very eager, so I shall give way.

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

It seems to me that the hon. Lady is making an extremely eloquent argument in favour of the amendment, because I am saying precisely what she is saying: Sheffield Dave, Slaithwaite Dave and the myriad different people with varying disabilities need flexibility in the system. I do not think that I disagree with her, but I would put matters slightly differently.  All those people want to make some progress towards being able to live independently, but everyone is starting at a different point in the journey, and it is important that the legislation should not foreclose options that might be vital stepping stones on the way to independent living, such as doing voluntary, community or part-time work. With the amendment, all that we seek to do is to make those possible outcomes of the pathway programme.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

But the amendment would also mechanise the process, and that would not necessarily be helpful because some people are not even in that place yet. The whole idea is that putting oneself forward for support and help is the right way. The crux of the matter is the concept of someone deciding that they have reached a point at which they can accept support and can venture out and do something else with their lives. The amendment is well intended, but would have unintended consequences.

We have talked about the fact that the attitudes of people at officer level in the department or working in the voluntary sector have changed over the years, but there have been others with stagnant attitudes who have had to be pushed on a little. So it is for people with disabilities. Sometimes, they have to overcome similar attitudes, and if the amendment were accepted certain issues would rear up in their minds. Over the decades, constituents have said to me, “I feel as if pressure is being put on me now to do something I otherwise wouldn’t choose to do.”

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

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s comments and she is making quite a profound point about people’s decision making, how they go about deciding whether to take part and at what point in their life they choose to avail themselves of whatever opportunities may be available. My point is that this is not about imposing a right that could easily be seen as an obligation on people. It is about making it clear that the obligation lies with the Government, who must ensure that, where someone makes the decision for themselves to come forward, the support available to the work-related activity group is also available to someone in the circumstances that the hon. Lady describes.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman at least understands my point; for that, many thanks. However, at many junctures in this debate, we have discussed how people make decisions and the information that they believe to be correct that is in fact incorrect. I think that this is one of those things that could be easily misunderstood and be detrimental to someone’s decision making.

Mr. Huntrose—

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is such a jack-in-the-box, how can I resist?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to jump up. I just want to remind her that paragraph (b) in the amendment specifically says that persons failing to participate in the activities could not be penalised. I completely agree with her, but let us put  it more bluntly than she has. There may be people with disabilities or severe disabilities who are simply not ready to start engaging in the process of moving towards the world of work. That is a huge change. Sheffield Dave is an example of someone for whom just living independently, let alone working independently, was a huge step to take. The hon. Lady is right about that. There are also people who it is envisaged would be on the support component and desperately keen to take the next step towards the world of work. All the amendment is designed to do is to make some options open to them that may not otherwise be.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

Again, I completely understandthe hon. Gentleman’s honourable intention with the amendment, but it is misplaced on this occasion. We have had many discussions about the sorts of things that people think they are required to do when in fact they are not. Simply stating, as paragraph (b) does, that there is no intention to penalise will not necessarily be the message that goes to people. The message may well go to them that there would be a duty. I prefer that people, through the entire process, decide for themselves and volunteer for help, rather than feeling as if it is somehow being imposed on them. We need to invest a great deal in people and we need to ensure that we focus that investment correctly, appropriately and adequately, but the amendment would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman believes it would.

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

In the time available before our interlude, I shall try to respond to the various points that have been made. I shall perhaps address at the start of our next sitting the more substantive points made by my hon. Friend and others.

The hon. Member for South-West Surrey said that this is one of the most important amendments that he has tabled in the proceedings thus far and perhaps will even be the most important in any of our 16 sittings in total. We can have a conversation in our next sitting about why he believes that, but I shall provide clarification now for him and therefore for others. It surprises us sometimes, but other people do read whatever is said here and therefore it is importantto correct the hon. Gentleman when he has unintentionally come to the wrong conclusion on case study 1 and Sarah. It is interesting that we have heard of case study Sarah, Sheffield Dave and Karl Marx all in one conversation.

In respect of case study 1, it is clear that the point is that Sarah’s condition gradually improves. It is not the fact that she volunteered but the fact that her condition improved that is relevant. That is why she would come out of the support group. If someone is in the support group and they volunteer, that does not prove to the Government that the decision to put them in the support group was wrong. It just shows that someone has a spark, a will, a determination, above what would be expected through the assessment, to try and to continue to try—