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

We were in the middle of my response to the comments made by Opposition Members. I started by referring to Sarah in the case study in our paperwork and I shall continue from there.

For clarification, the significant point in case study 1 is that Sarah’s condition gradually improved.

I apologise for not greeting you at the start, Mr. Amess. It is great to see you in your place on this sunny afternoon, rather than bleak morning.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Committee that someone is given access to the support group because they have attained the 15 points required and met one of the 46 descriptors. Nevertheless, if that person sought to volunteer for work-focused interviews or work-related activity or, indeed, to enter the world of paid employment, if permitted of course, they would still be treated as a member of the support group in terms of their assessment. Only a medical assessment or a new personal capability assessment can end a person’s membership of the support group. In such circumstances, no member of a support group would be punished for undertaking work-focused interviews or work-related activity. It would not be the volunteering itself that would take someone out ofthe support group, but the new personal capability  assessment or, as in Sarah’s case—the case study is very clear—the changing nature of the condition. Some conditions improve gradually over time.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He makes a very important point. Will he clarify what circumstances, in a case such as Sarah’s, or one in which someone has perhaps engaged successfully in work-related activity, would trigger a new personal capability assessment?

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

That is difficult because unlike Sheffield Dave, case study Sarah is not a real person. However, a new personal capability assessment could be requested primarily by a personal adviser who might notice a change in the circumstances, for better or worse. That would be the main means for requesting and carrying out a new PCA.

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

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) about reassessment, would the new PCA need to be triggered by the personal adviser or client, or could a carer take an interest and perhaps prompt the adviser? Would that be an acceptable trigger?

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

Our preferred option would be through the personal adviser. We have been clear about the opportunity for interaction between a carer and an adviser. For example, from 2008, customers seeking the employment and support allowance should be encouraged to take an advocate with them where sanctions might be involved or they have to prove good cause. There should be a close working relationship between an advocate or a family member, and the customer and the personal adviser. That sort of interaction could lead to the personal adviser requesting a new PCA.

May I turn to the points raised before lunch?

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

I want to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey about what triggers a PCA. Is the Minister aware that a number of people think that a change in employment status can trigger an assessment of a person’s entitlement to the disability living allowance? That is a serious matter because it is a disincentive to people wanting to engage in employment. The Child Poverty Action Group argues that anecdotal evidence indicates that moving into employment can trigger a reassessment and removal of DLA, which can leave people worse off if they access work. Is the Minister aware of those concerns?

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

I have not had the opportunity to quote from the pamphlet that the hon. Gentleman has in his possession, but he acknowledges that it is anecdotal evidence.

We will structure the new employment and support allowance entitlement according to our policy intention and legal position. It is the personal capability assessment, not an anecdote or pamphlet,  that will determine whether someone is in the support group and attracts the higher level of benefit, and we have discussed that in great detail. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and, through him, the authors of the pamphlet.

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

This is very important because it gets to the nub of the question whether the structure of the benefits system is a big disincentive to people engaging with the world of work and because promoting such engagement is the point of the entire Bill. If the Minister does not want anecdotal evidence, will he accept actual evidence from Citizens Advice about voluntary work? Citizens Advice says that

“our evidence shows that sometimes when people undertake voluntary work, it is sometimes interpreted as indicating that they are capable of work and therefore not entitled to benefit.”

I am happy to supply the Minister with the evidence from Citizens Advice, but is he aware of those concerns and will he do anything to address them?

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

There is only one person in the Committee who seems to be confused, and that is the hon. Gentleman, although I hope that that is accidental. The fact is—I cannot be any clearer than this—that the decision on whether a person will be in the support group will be based on the evidence from a medical assessment carried out by a medical expert. If they meet the 15 points, they are entitled to ESA; if they meet one of the 46 descriptors, they are in the support group—it is as clear as that. We could not be any clearer about the employment and support arrangements. Which part of that does the hon. Gentleman not understand?

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

I am grateful to the Minister, and I understand all of what he said. However, that was not the point that I was discussing; my point related to what triggers a PCA reassessment and to people’s concerns that it can be triggered by a change in employment status. I have given the Minister anecdotal evidence from the Child Poverty Action Group and Citizens Advice that the PCA can be triggered by a change in employment status. If so, it is a major disincentive to people engaging with the world of work.

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

I can do no better than repeat the response that I gave, although perhaps I can rearrange some of the words. It is the personal capability assessment that will determine whether someone is entitled to ESA and/or the support group, not a change in whether they are volunteering or undertaking work-focused interviews or work-related activity.

The hon. Gentleman might want to make a wider point about DLA, which, like other benefits, can be an in-work benefit, but we are talking about an entirely different benefit entitlement with an entirely different structure for an entirely different purpose. We have been very clear about that, but if he feels that there is genuine concern and confusion—other than in his own mind, from time to time—about a lack of clarity as regards ESA, about entitlement to the support group and about the fact that we will not punish anyone who, for whatever reason, is determined to undertake work-focused interviews or work-related activity when  we have not requested it as a condition of entitlement to benefit, I will be happy to join him in finding ways to tackle the issue. As I said, however, we have been very clear with all the disability organisations and in the Bill, as well as in our briefings, draft regulations, meetings, speeches and our comments on Second Reading and in Committee. We have absolutely no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman—quite fairly, I am sure—is concerned about.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying my earlier point about what might trigger a new PCA. He made it clear that engaging in work-related activity, or even potentially getting back into work, does not, of itself, trigger a new PCA. He also made it clear that incapacity benefit personal advisers will potentially be in a position to trigger a new PCA. Will he therefore reassure the Committee that the points that he has just made about the circumstances that will or will not trigger a new PCA will be in the guidance to those advisers?

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

I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a reasonable request. As I said, the personal advisers will trigger the PCA. I should add that Jobcentre Plus decision makers will also have the power to request a new PCA. Through a carer or GP, the customer could additionally request a review of the outcome in terms of their entitlement to ESA or the support group.

As I said, if the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) genuinely feels that there is lack of clarity despite the clear way in which we are setting out our position today, I shall be happy to hear from him, either in writing or in some other way, how we can ensure that people outside the Committee understand our position. The medical assessment will entitle someone to ESA, not the fact that, for whatever reason, someone has taken up or volunteered for work-focused interviews or work-related activity. We are not taking in the Bill the power to do what the hon. Gentleman, perhaps reasonably, is concerned about in terms of conditionality and sanctioning. I hope that that is clear but if, despite our efforts, there is still concern about ESA rather than DLA—they are different benefits for different purposes—I shall be happy to correspond or converse with him.

Where I think there is lack of clarity—we know this from constituency cases—is in the linking rules. There is a genuine lack of understanding. We can see whyand there is a shared responsibility for that. The Government could do more, as I am sure could Members of Parliament in various ways. The voluntary sector could also do more although it already does fantastic work—Citizens Advice does great things. Perhaps we could all do more together on the linking rules. I am sure that private voluntary sector providers, pathways and Jobcentre Plus could do more, but, importantly, Jobcentre Plus will continue to carry out the first of the work-focused interviews so that all the entitlements are spelled out at that stage. That is part of the core script for what Jobcentre Plus will say to its customers at the first work-focused interview.

Specifically on money, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey consistently raises the issue for the right reasons and  to keep us on our toes to ensure that we maintain our commitment to our funding model. I shall repeat what I have said on more than one occasion. The question does not change, nor does the answer. I am not suggesting that the question should change and he should accept that the answer will not change. The roll-out of pathways has the same funding model as the current pathways.

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

I did not intervene earlier because I missed some of the earlier exchanges and did not want to rehearse them because of my absence. The Minister referred to work-related interviews and indicated that there will be a formal script to rehearse the benefits and conditions under which the benefits are payable. My constituency experience and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members is that there are many cases of the Department’s argument being not on the facts of the case but on what was or was not alleged to have been said either on the telephone or at interview. In the interests of clarity and an audit trail, can he give attention to the need for personal advisers at work-focused interviews, particularly the crucial first one, to establish clearly and in writing if necessary some evidence of what is being said to customers so that there is not an argument afterwards about whether they were told the particular circumstances in which the benefit is available?

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

The hon. Gentleman characteristically makes a reasonable point. It is captured by the power in clause 13, which requires action plans to be a written record of the conversation at work-focused interviews. That record will be agreed between the customer and the adviser. However, in addition we intend to include inaccurate information being provided by the adviser or Jobcentre Plus under the good cause for not fulfilling conditionality. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on the specifics of clause 13 and the draft regulations, which we have provided. If he is not satisfied with that, we could further debate the matter later. The point is a fair one and the action plans are intended to be a written record of the work-focused interviews.

On the specifics of funding, the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for South-West Surrey asked whether it is enough. The funding model will be the same, and the funding will be structured to enable investment in people who wish to volunteer to go on to the support available through pathways to work, even if no conditionality is applied to them.

All that I say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is that we have set aside the £360 million for the proposals on welfare reform. He repeatedly asked whether it is enough, but what is his assessment of any potential funding gap, and how much does he think it amounts to? I shall happily give way to him if he has a specific figure. I say the same to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey. Does he have a specific figure for any funding gap in the pathways to work roll-out? I shall happily give way to him if he thinks that additional investment is needed.

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

Will the Minister give way?

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

Of course. First, for the record, the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for South-West Surrey earlier raised that issue for good reason, and I am trying to ascertain whether they have made a scientific observation about a funding gap in the roll-out of pathways to work. I gave both hon. Gentlemen the opportunity to answer, but at the time, they were not ready. I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and then give the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for South-West Surrey the opportunity to answer that question.

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

I am most grateful to the Minister. The straightforward answer is that we have heard from the Government neither about the number of existing claimants—rather than new claimants who will claim after 2008 under the new allowance—who will be able to take advantage of the new regime and all its resources, nor about the number of people in the support component who might want the high-end support and resource-intensive advice and backing if they are to take advantage of the work-related activity component. How many of them will volunteer? What are the estimates?

If there is a headlong rush of people migrating from the support component to the work-related activity component, as we hope there will be, with all the condition-management resourcing that will apply, will that investment be enough? We have not heard enough from the Minister, because he assumes that the employment and support allowance will be available for new claimants only, and not for the other people whom I have just listed.

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

Mr. Amess, that deserves the awardfor the longest intervention thus far—with your indulgence, understandably. I shall give way to thehon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and then to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey.

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

We may wish to reflect on the issue during our debates about later clauses, because it is important and it pertains to the clauses on conditionality. I draw the Minister’s attention to estimates already published by various outside organisations, which are based on written answers that he and the Under-Secretary have given about the costs of pathways to work set against the amount of money available and the likely numbers of people who will benefit. Some assessments suggest that there will be a shortfall of some £200 million to £250 million when dealing with new claimants alone. If the Minister is looking for estimates, there are plenty in circulation. He says, “It is the same funding model,” which is fair enough. However, it requires more explanation. How is it calculated in terms of the numbers of on-flow? I could happily have this debate for a good deal longer.

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

I give way to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey again.

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

Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, I have received numerous representations from outside organisations on the funding model. The Government must ensure that their sums are right. Will the Minister assure us that the funding model will be the same, and that the funding per person for the people whom he expects to use the pathways to work programme will be the same, too?

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

I have enjoyed listening to the three hon. Gentlemen trying to avoid answering a question and avoid committing themselves to an additional penny of funding. We have said repeatedly—on Second Reading and in various parliamentary forums—that based on all the evidence of pathways to work thus far, we are absolutely satisfied that the necessary investment will be in place through the £360 million that we have set aside. If, over time, there is a change in the profile of those people who come on to ESA, we will have to consider what more we can do. All that I am saying to Opposition Members, three of whom have made this point from the Front Bench on behalf of their parties, is if they share the belief that not enough funding is in place, what additional funding would they commit to? They must answer that question not as Back Benchers raising the concerns of other organisations, but on behalf of their parties. They have positions of responsibility. I am trying to get a sense of the additional funding that they would like to be put in place.

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

One of the Opposition’s duties is to hold the Government to account, so will the Minister answer my previous question? I asked him not whether the funding model was the same, but whether the funding per head of person who goes on to the pathways programme is the same in the roll-out as it was under the pilots.

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

In the contracts with the private and voluntary sector the same funding model will be used in terms of the individual. We will ensure that the necessary investment is put in place. One of the things that we look at is the creativity of the private and voluntary sector. Can they do things differently and more effectively, using their experience and their flexibilities? Are we prescriptive about how much each and every instance and each and every outcome should attract? No, we are not. That is one of the reasons why we are involved in the private and voluntary sector in the way that we are.

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

Perhaps I can bring a fresh angle to this little discussion without reopening it and joining the Minister’s list. Our interest in this matter is, if the private sector is able to deliver a more cost-effective model—the Minister, fair-minded man as he is, is prepared to consider that it might be so—should the profit thereby generated be fed into additional or improved services or will it be pocketed by the contractor or the Minister and the Department in terms of a reduced funding requirement? I think the  Minister will understand from the exchanges in the Committee that whatever the exact figure, there is a good deal of concern about the ability to operate this scheme. From what I saw of pathways, they are a resource-intensive activity—I am sure that he would concede that—but we need to ensure that we get the best possible value for money and that people, be they on one side or other of the equation, are properly covered for their requirements.

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

That is another fair point, which I will come to in a couple of seconds.

My general concern on this matter—I say this without seeking to incur your wrath for being unnecessarily gentle with others, Mr. Amess—is that I do not enjoy listening to those who voted against every penny of the new investment now saying that they do not think it is enough. That is how I would put it gently. Others will reflect on that and come to their own judgment.

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

Will the Minister give way?

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

No; I am going to make some progress.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is on to a fair point about contracts. When, as many of us do, we sit down with the private and voluntary sector providers they talk about their frustration about the way in which in the past some contracts—there is no need to be specific today—created perverse incentives. They achieved their outcomes eight months in and there was no financial reward to encourage them to continue with all their great work for the next four months. Because of the type of people that they are, some continue to provide services. In terms of contracts, it is important that we learn that lesson.

It is also important that as we increasingly devolve some of our welfare provision, we consider recycling the savings for further good work. Our city strategy, which we announced in July, involves 15 pathfinders across the United Kingdom. Two thirds of the people on benefit live in our big cities. I do not say that it is not an issue outside cities, but two thirds live in the cities so it is an additional challenge for those cities to come up with solutions that suit their purposes. The challenges in Glasgow are different from those in east London, which in turn are different from those in Birmingham or Newcastle. We are saying to the cities, “You work with us. You design a solution to the specific problems in your city. And let us see if we can’t further incentivise it.” If a city makes savings and succeeds in supporting people and giving them the chance to work, it should have the chance to retain some of the savings rather than the Treasury and ourselves seeking to claw it back. That is devolution and will ensure a sense of continued momentum. It is important to put that principle into the delivery on the ground.

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

I think that every member of the Committee would support the idea of recycling any savings into better support services. For the purposes of clarity, will the Minister tell the Committee what saving he expects to make in the roll-out of the pathways to work programme by using private and voluntary sector providers, compared with the cost of the pilot programme?

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

We will be happy to do that when we negotiate the contracts. I do not think that it would be very helpful to do it in advance. I do not believe that everybody in the country listens to all the specific details of our conversations in Committee, but it would not be a good negotiating strategy to announce today our attempted savings through using the capacity of the private and voluntary sectors.

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

Will the Minister give way?

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

I shall give way one more time, and then I shall deal with the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he appreciates that part of the reason for these interventions is that outside bodies are concerned about the financing of the roll-out of the pathways to work programme. Can he confirm that he is not budgeting to make a saving by using private and voluntary sector providers, although if he can make one he will, and that as things stand the cost allocated per head for those using the pathways programme will be the same in the roll-out as on the pilot programme?

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

I seek to be entirely direct with the hon. Gentleman. The targets that we have set are not on funding, savings or efficiency. They are on achieving a net reduction of 1 million in the number of people on IB/ESA over a decade. We have not even set a target for the number of people in the support group, and we are not going to do so as it would create all sorts of unintended incentives in the system. The point is not to assess how much we will save.

We intend to use the private and voluntary sectors because we admire their flexibility, expertise and connections and the relationship of trust that they have in many instances. With the best will in the world, the Government do not have that, regardless of which party is in power. It is important for us to plan for personal advisers to have a relationship of trust with people and support them to get closer to the labour market. Having said that, in carrying out a series of other important priority matters for us the staff of Jobcentre Plus and the personal advisers working under the new deal and other avenues have done a fantastic job, and are recognised throughout the world as having done so.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I think that most Members of the House welcome the Bill and the concept therein of the employment and support allowance. Why does the Minister refuse to confirm that the amount per person will be the same as in pathways to work, which clearly had some benefit?

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

The hon. Member for South-West Surrey has already asked that question. We are not going to set a target per head. It will take as much as it takes to support someone to get closer to the labour market, based on the complicated experiences of the individual. We do not wish to have a public debate by saying that we intend to spend whatever amount of money on each customer. Contracts will be constructed around outcomes, but as a matter of public policy we  will not say that somebody with one condition should attract a certain amount of funding, someone with another a different amount and someone with a combination of those conditions a third amount.

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

The hon. Member for Daventry will have seen the wide variety of support given in the pathways to work area in Derbyshire. Even today there is not a fixed amount per head for those who are being helped. That intervention is intended to help Opposition Members.

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

My hon. Friend is right that there isan average, but that is different, from a point of conception, from saying how much. [Hon. Members: “What about the average?”] On the average, additional costs will be involved in helping many people to get closer to the labour market, but I am not going to hazard a guess today as to what they might be and I am not going to set a target. As I have said repeatedly, it will take as much as it takes to get someone closer to the labour market, based on their various experiences and conditions.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I think this is fundamental to whether the amendment would make a lot of sense, because if the funding is not there, any amendments will be pretty much irrelevant anyway. To return to the essential point, however, if an average amount per head is to be paid under the pathways to work scheme across the country—we recognise that the scheme has brought a lot of benefits—why is the Minister unable to commit to achieving that average across the country, or at least to ensuring that the funds per head will remain in the ESA scheme? Does he not have a commitment from the Chancellor perhaps?

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Committee again—I think that this is his second stint, although we have had six sittings thus far, so it is just as well that we do not get paid per hour.

Mr. Ruffleyrose—

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

No. I will not give way.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I should just like to place it on the record that I am an employer who believes that, in whipping the Bill, we should have flexible working practices and a work-life balance. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has not appeared at every single sitting so far, but we will be seeing a lot more of him in the weeks to come.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

We have got that on the record. Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I wonder whether I could—

Danny Alexanderrose—

Hon. Members:

Flexible working.

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

Okay. One more.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before we conclude our discussion, I have a slightly different question. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to give averages, figures per head or all the things on which he has just been scrutinised. However, he says that it will take as much funding as it takes, so will he explain where the figure of £360 million came from in the first place? That figure has been attached to the funding for this welfare reform project for a long time. Was it plucked out of the air or based on some rational assessment of what might be needed?

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

The £360 million set out in the welfare reform Green Paper is an assessment of how much would be needed to carry out the IT investment and to put in place the support, the personal advisers, the work-focused interviews and the ESA. As I said, we will not publicly set an average or a goal as regards how much getting someone closer to the labour market is worth. If we did, Opposition Members would, quite fairly, say, “Why have you only set this amount? Isn’t it a disgrace that you have set a public financial figure based on each and every individual?”

I do not want to stray into your area of responsibilities, Mr. Amess, but I wonder whether I could be encouraged to come close to a conversation about the amendment before us, although perhaps I should first say a little more about the outcomes in terms of cost per individual or averages. Despite some disquiet in the room, we think that contracts that are not 100 per cent. outcomes based, but a 70:30 mix, are the right approach and will ensure that we do not have the quick-wins situation that was mentioned before our lunch break. A mix of 70 per cent. outcomes and 30 per cent. overheads and investment will enable people to access the welfare provision market in a way that a 100 per cent. outcomes structure would not.

Let me turn to the specifics of the amendment. As I said, we do not want to write anyone off and we will pick up on the best experience of pathways as a matter of public policy and delivery to ensure that that does not happen. However, we recognise that it would be unreasonable to require people with the most severe functional limitations to engage in mandatory work-related activity. As we know, such people will be placed in a support group and will not be required to take part in work-focused interviews as a condition of receiving the full amount of their employment and support allowance.

Clause 11(1) provides that the obligation to participate in work-focused interviews cannot apply to customers who are in the support group. We are not labelling those people as incapable, but as having limited capability for work-related activity at this time. We expect that many of their conditions might improve sufficiently to enable them to leave the support group at some point. As I made clear in the Committee’s second sitting, and as the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading, customers in the support group will be able to volunteer at any time for any appropriate  support on offer, including work-focused interviews with a specialist personal adviser. Therefore, paragraph (a) of the amendment is unnecessary.

Support group members are not caught by the provisions in clause 11, so their benefit cannot be affected if they do not participate in any work-related activity, provided that they continue to comply with standard benefit rules such as those on permitted work. As there is no risk of support group customers being sanctioned if they do not participate in work-related activity, paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment are unnecessary.

However, I do agree with the entirely fair comments of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey about the journey back to work being taken in small steps by many people. For some, that will be about regaining confidence if it has been knocked, undermined or lost. For others it will be about refreshing skills—people who were employed in traditional industries who have been out of work for some time, for example, or people who worked in the world of IT, in which, increasingly, a person’s skills can become stale if they have been out of work for just six months. Volunteering and part-time work are also important steps along the journey back to economic activity.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for finally getting around to addressing the substance of the amendment. I shall briefly address the two points that he has raised, and ask him to respond. First, he said that there is no need for paragraph (a) of the amendment, which would stipulate in primary legislation that people in the support group will be able to volunteer to take part in the packages. He says that the Secretary of State has given assurances on the Floor of the House, and that this issue is addressed in the notes to the Bill, but nowhere in the Bill does it say that people in the support group have the right to volunteer to take part in work-related activity. Does not he think it important that that right should appear somewhere in the Bill?

The Minister’s second point was that sanctions would not apply to people in the support group. We accept that that is as it should be, but that is not really the purpose of paragraph (c) of the amendment. It is to ensure that when the Department is arranging contracts with providers to help people to get closer to the labour market, it is accepted that for some people the objective should not be simply to place them in a full-time job. Some people in the support group may volunteer to participate in work-related activities, and for them, the best outcome of the programme might well be part-time, voluntary or community work, or education.

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

Importantly, we also have to ensure that the contracts are right, and we have had discussions on this with private and voluntary sector providers. First, we should try to ensure that as far as possible work is sustained rather than short term. Secondly, contracts should be structured to ensure that contractors do not simply, as a matter of operation, support those who are already nearest to the labour market, although I am sure that most of them do not wish to do that. We will make those two important distinctions in our contracts.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. Will he at least acknowledge that if, without prejudice to the level of resources that turnout to be necessary, there is a tightening of the situation—in the real world, this has happened with all Governments at different times—people in the support group will wish to fall back on his pledge that they will not be excluded and their support will not be rationed?

My second point is, in drawing up the structure of contracts for the private contractors who will take on the additional part of this work, while the Minister rightly expresses the need to have certain firm conditions, will he also make it clear that the contractors have an obligation to admit members of the support group to the services that they offer without prejudice to whether or not they are on the support group? They must offer the services to anyone within the allowance, not simply to those who are in its employment or work-related section.

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

Those are entirely fair points. The first of the hon. Gentleman’s two points is captured by clause 11(1)(b) on the basis of any sanctions. If someone is in the support group, we cannot impose anything on them on the basis of subsection (1)(b). That is included in the Bill.

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

I shall be brief, because I realise that the Minister wants to make progress. With respect, that is not a sufficient answer, because it simply says that such people will not lose the benefit. We are talking about a situation where they might lose the right to participate in the programme, which the Secretary of State has promised them.

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

As the hon. Gentleman says, that is about the sanctions on benefit. I shall make some progress and comment on how we intend to ensure that the pathways-style support happens. He is also right about the contracts for the private and voluntary sector: they must be flexible enough to ensure that someone who is in the support group and who volunteers can have access to the pathways-style support. That would be done through the work-focused interviews, which will largely be provided by the private and voluntary sectors. He is right to raise that issue. We intend that it will be fed through into the contracts.

As hon. Members are aware—this relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, who may wish to reflect on this over time, perhaps in advance of Report in the Commons—the entitlement to access pathways-style support is enabled through section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. It gives the power to provide such support, and talks about

“assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities”.

That is the primary legislative source of the type of support that we are talking about. I understand that it was the source of the conditionality support through the new deal for disabled people, and is relied on in the extension of support in other benefit regimes and in some of the jobseeker’s allowance new deals.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is about setting out new powers to impose conditionality upon  those for whom we think it is appropriate. The volunteering would be covered by the powers in section 2 of the 1973 Act. As he also knows, we are currently providing support through pathways to work for those who volunteer, even for those who are in the exempt category. That process will be carried over to ESA for the support group. He might want to reflect on specifics and the powers in the 1973 Act, but we derive the power to provide the support that we refer to as pathways roll-out from it.

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

I would indeed like to reflect on the last point that the Minister made. I am still concerned that there is no primary legislative right for people in the support group to apply for the package of support offered under the work-related activity programme. I am grateful to him for responding at some length both to the points that I made in my speech and to the interventions that were made. I am still very concerned that the Minister and the Government have not appreciated the full purpose of my amendment, which is to ensure that the end point of any programme offered is the possibility of steps towards full-time employment, and not just full-time employment itself.

I am concerned that the programmes, as currently designed in the pathways pilots, will tend to favour those on the work-related activity programme, for which people in the support element can volunteer, should they so choose, but that the programmes might not necessarily be designed for them. That is the substance of my concern. Will the Minister respond to that? If he does not, I am afraid that I shall press the amendment to a vote.

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

I shall respond briefly to that point and to some others.

Based on the tone in which the hon. Gentleman moved his amendment, I am not surprised that it might end with a Division. I am not sure that there is much that I can do or say to reassure him, given the way in which he introduced the amendment.

I have an additional concern about the way in which the amendment is structured—[Interruption.]

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. I think that we should ignore the fire alarm and carry on until it gets serious.

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

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I shall carry on until the room is empty.

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

Shouldn’t be too long now. [Interruption.]

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

As someone says from a sedentary position, that has nothing to do with the fire alarm.

New subsection (5)(a) of the amendment suggests that the Government should

“ensure a 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.”

Based on what he said at the outset, I suspect that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey will push the amendment to a vote, and I understand why he wishes  to do so. However, I do not think that the Government should be compelled to provide full work-focused interview support to everyone in the support group who wants it regardless of circumstance. As the Government and also progressives, that is not where we want to be.

We are talking about folk with often serious and fluctuating mental health conditions and the Government being responsible, under primary legislation, for the provision of work-focused interviews and work-related activity for everyone, regardless of their condition and of whether that interview might be bad for their health, counterproductive to their condition or add to the pressure that they are under.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

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

One moment; this is a serious point.

If the hon. Member for South-West Surrey seriously wants that to be a matter of public policy enshrined in primary legislation, I disagree with him very strongly.

We know from the draft regulations that automatic access to the support group is for those with a terminal illness. We have talked about that already. But it is there also for those who it is assessed on medical grounds might harm others, including Jobcentre Plus staff and personal advisers. If the hon. Gentleman seriously wishes that to be public policy, to enshrine it in primary legislation and to ensure that the Government have that absolute legal responsibility to everyone, regardless of their circumstances, condition and health, as well as the possible impact on those working with them and providing that support, frankly, I think that he is doing a disservice to many of his other comments in Committee thus far.

I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends, but it is what his amendment would achieve. It undermines many of his well considered comments. On that basis, I encourage him to reflect on whether he wants to put such a provision in primary legislation as part of a supportive mechanism to get people back into the labour market. I do not think that that is what he intended. It is up to him to articulate that if that is indeed what he wants as a matter of public policy.

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

Before we conclude and before external events intervene, let me deal with the Minister’s two final points.

First, let me be absolutely clear that my amendment simply seeks to ensure that legislation reflects what the Secretary of State promised on the Floor of the House. That is all we are trying to do. We want to ensure that the Government are true to their word. I know that they want that and I have absolutely no doubt about their good intentions in that respect, but we want to ensure that the Bill commits them to doing what they say they want to do and nothing more.

The point that the Minister made about the amendment having the effect of requiring the Government to offer work-related activity to people who could be a danger to others is a good one, but that does not affect my support for it because I can simply table further amendments to ensure that it does not  apply to those individuals. We are trying to ensure that the Bill reflects the commitments and promises that the Government made on a number of occasions.

The Minister’s second point is important and questioned whether we want a Bill that assumes that everyone, no matter what their disability, would want to move in the direction of work-related activity. I stress that the amendment would cover only those who volunteer to go in that direction. That is all we are seeking to do. We want to ensure that the important structure that the Government are putting in place in the Bill, which we welcome, gives as much hope to people who are further away from the labour market as to those who are nearer to it because we have real concerns that the existing structure might unintentionally disadvantage that group.

On that basis, I shall press the amendment to a vote.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Before we come to an expected debate on clause 9 stand part, I remind the Committee that we seem to have had an extremely wide-ranging debate on amendment No. 227 and I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

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

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Amess.

The Minister may not have agreed with the conclusion of the previous debate, but I congratulate Labour Members, as well as Opposition Members, on a lively and constructive debate. We shall return to it later.

I have only two questions; it will be a short stand part debate. I seek clarity about an issue that is not dealt with under the clause but which has been spoken of and which was prefigured in the Green Paper. It is the ad hoc review of existing claimants under the new regime. My remarks could have been made equally well under clause 8. The principle is the same.

The new PCA applies only to claimants of the new ESA. The Green Paper said that, for existing claimants of incapacity benefit, the Department was planning to complement its existing case review of existing stock with ad hoc case checks by a dedicated new team. The Green Paper stated:

“Where these checks produce doubt about the nature or extent of an individual's incapacity, a fresh PCA will be required.”

That would be a new assessment, should this part of the Bill become law. However, Mind said in evidence to the Select Committee report on pathways published this spring that such ad hoc reviews might induce fear and uncertainty among existing claimants; and that they might be unnecessary, as eligibility for benefit was already reviewed regularly.

My questions are these. First, what are the intentions of the Department as regards doing ad hoc reviews of existing claimants? Secondly, will the Minister tellus about the processes that govern case reviews, particularly the criteria to be used for selecting those existing claimants who will be the subject of ad hoc checks? It is a small, granular detail, but the theme for many of my hon. Friends and for Labour Members is that existing claimants should not have their interests overlooked. I know that the Minister would not want to overlook existing claimants’ rights, but although the issue was flagged up in the Green Paper, it did not make its way into the Bill. It would be useful to hear his thoughts.

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

I, too, will be brief because, although it was a little ill-tempered at times, in our previous debate we managed to bring out several important points. It was a useful discussion.

I wish to raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. First, I would welcome a little more clarification on the process by which people can move from the work-related activity component into the support component. I seek clarification on how and when it might take place, particularly for those who have a condition that might fluctuate, or whose ability to undertake work-related activities might be affected by other factors such as caring responsibilities—a problem that has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Secondly, I would be interested to know a little more about the way in which the 46 descriptors were arrived at. I have received representations from organisations speaking for those with severe mental illness who say that they were not consulted as much on their limited capability for work-related activity assessment as they were consulted—thoroughly—on their limited capability for work. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions on one or two specific categories, and whether he envisages them automatically being involved in the support component? For instance, questions have been raised about people who are sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, whether in hospital or in the community, under guardianship orders or under the proposed new supervised community treatment. Does he envisage that those people would automatically be in the support group? Would they have to go through the assessment? How would they be treated?

It has been put to me that people who are so ill that they have to be treated without their consent for their own safety are not in a position to undertake work-related activity. For example, people subject to residential orders will not be able to leave hospital. There are a number of points on which the Minister could usefully flesh out the Government’s position.

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

The House of Commons never fails to surprise me. In 10 years here, that is the first time I have known an amendment to be moved in Committee after those who tabled it had said that they did not support it in full, and all in the middle of a fire alarm. That was a novel experience.

I shall pick up the points that have been raised. [Interruption.]

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

The fire alarm sounds only when the Minister speaks.

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

That is because I speak so much.

With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, we had a wide-ranging debate on a narrow amendment, so I shall be brief. On the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, someone in the work-related activity group could move into the support group if they or their personal adviser or carer requested a revised PCA. Within that issue is the matter of how we should support people with degenerative disease, and in my experience there will come a point where such people will be assessed as suitable for the support group. Whether somebody would remain in the support group if they were assessed before being sectioned under the Mental Health Act will depend to begin with on what the medical expert said in the initial PCA. When they are sectioned, a carer, personal adviser or anyone else involved in the process will be able to request a new PCA. Conditionality, such as work-focused interviews and work-related activity, would be suspended. That would clearly be well within the boundary of good cause. We have set out in the draft regulations and the notes for the Committee where we intend to set the bar for good cause, and being sectioned under the Mental Health Act is way beyond what we anticipate to be good cause.

I add parenthetically—I move from gently to parenthetically—that if Opposition Members had been successful and amendment No. 227 had been accepted we would have had a legal responsibility to undertake work-focused interviews and provide work-related activity if a person sectioned under the Mental Health Act had wanted them and volunteered for them. I add my sense of relief that the Committee, in its wisdom, did not support that amendment.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

Would the Minister have supported the amendment had that exclusion been made?

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

I have already explained that there is no need for the amendment because of the Employment and Training Act 1973—that is reason No. 1. Reason No. 2 is that it would have moved us in the wrong direction in finding the appropriate way to support people with mental illnesses and fluctuating conditions. There were many reasons not to support the amendment.

I have been encouraged to digress, Mr. Amess, but I deal now with how benefit checks will be carried out. We know from our constituency casework that when people are called for an interview on benefit  entitlement, they often think, “What’s this about? Why is this happening to me? Has someone told them something? What does this mean for me?” There is a sense of worry in many instances, as we all know from the people who come to talk to us at our surgeries and to whom we talk in our constituencies. In terms of the current PCAs and benefit entitlement observations, I should like to see a system that is more regularised in that we would tell customers what would be expected within a set period of time. Perhaps at the point when they had applied for incapacity benefit, the norm would be that they would be called and they would have a conversation every year, every two years or whatever, so that there was a sense that this was part of the system. Particularly for those with mental health illnesses, we should not add that sense of worry that they must have done something wrong or that they were no longer entitled to the benefit and that is why the letter came through the post.

Incidentally, there is an important piece of work for us to do to ensure that our forms and letters are much more customer-friendly, particularly as we roll out ESA. One of the things I have been doing in recent weeks, and will continue to do, is sitting with those who have a recent and current experience of a mental health illness and discussing how they think we should restructure some of our communications. It is not something we issue press releases about or issue the names of participants, but it is important to get this redesign for ESA right. Listening to people who have experienced frustration with the current process is important.

As for continued entitlement to the ESA system, if there is a change in condition that is the point at which a new assessment would take place about whether someone was still entitled to ESA at work-related activity level or at support group level. We will learn from best practice how often that should be. One of the lessons that we should take from incapacity benefit is the one I mentioned earlier, which is that we should seek to ensure that those with an experience of mental health know that this is an accepted part of the process. It is not because they have done something wrong and it is not because someone somewhere inside this great government machine thinks that they are no longer entitled to it. It is just a continuing part of keeping in close contact with the customer. It is part of work-focused interviews. It is part of the personal adviser arrangements; and it is part of continuing to ensure that we take account of changing medical circumstances that a customer may experience. We are in the realm of comment rather than specific response here. We are trying to build best experience into the new system.