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

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 10, page 8, line 1, leave out from ‘allowance’ to end of line 2.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 28, in clause 10, page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (5).

No. 32, in clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave out from ‘allowance’ to end of line 22.

No. 34, in clause 11, page 10, line 17, leave out subsection (5).

No. 36, in clause 12, page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (5).

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

It is good news that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will be responding to these amendments. I mean no disrespect to the other Minister; it is nice to have two of them here. I do not think, Mr. Amess, that a clause stand part debate is scheduled for this clause.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I am content that there be a clause stand part debate, but I will see how the debate on the amendment proceeds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I have one or two wider points to make about the nature of work-focused health-related assessments. Can the Minister confirm that those assessments are intended to be similar in some ways to the capability assessment and report that is currently undertaken in the pathways areas, in focusing very much on what people can do—identifying activities in which they can take part and specific health interventions that may help them to get themselves closer to the labour market and ready for work?

There has been some concern that the capability report currently used in the pathways areas is doing some work that is similar to what the personal capability assessment is designed to do, particularly under the revised programme that has been introduced.

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

On the capability report in pathways, which has been used as a model—certainly that was the intention for the new assessment—was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was to discover that evaluation work done by the Department found, first, that the reports were sent rather late to personal advisers and, secondly, that the IB PAs thought that in many cases the reports were repetitive and included less than useful generic information? Does he join me in hoping that those problems have been designed out of pathways to work and that they will play no part in the new regime, which we hope will operate much better than the capability report?

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

I am grateful for that intervention, as the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was somewhat surprised to read those frank comments in the evaluation but welcomed the fact that it included them. Personal advisers said that the quality and level of detail in the capability report was generic, standardised and repetitive, as he said, and some personal advisers said that they were of minimal use—that they did not serve any useful purpose above  and beyond what the personal adviser was able to do through the work-focused interview process.

We do not yet have any draft regulations on work-focused health-related assessments, and the details of what is intended in the draft regulations and supporting material are pretty sketchy. Even inthe personal capability assessment report, the developments in respect of work-focused health-related assessments are the subject of six paragraphs. Given all that, it would be useful if the Minister set out in much greater detail than in those documents the natureand purpose of the work-focused health-related assessments, and how the Department has learned the lessons of the pathways evaluation and will ensure that the exercises are useful.

As the assessments are intended, at least in part, to lay the foundations for the conditionality regime that will apply once the Bill is implemented, perhaps the Minister could also clarify when and under what conditions she expects that regulations will be introduced to make the work-focused health-related assessment compulsory. The Committee needs to understand that important point when dealing with the clause.

I draw the Committee’s attention to an exchange that I had with the Secretary of State on Second Readingin which he gave the impression—inadvertently, I believe—in response to an intervention I made on him that it was not the intention to have sanctions or conditionality for the work-focused health-related assessments. He wrote to me about it subsequently, and the letter states:

“It has always been our intention that participation in the work-focused health-related assessments would be mandatory and hence a sanction would be imposed for failure to participate.”

Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s thinking?

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

This may assist the hon. Gentleman. The explanatory notes suggest that regulations will make provision for reducing the amount of ESA payable if a claimant fails without good cause to take part in an assessment. I believe that we will get to that later, perhaps on clause stand part, but it was obviously prefigured in the Government’s thinking.

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

I am grateful for that intervention. My purpose in raising the matter now is simply to ensure that the exchange that took place on Second Reading is clarified for the record.

We have had a full debate on the issue that is the focus of this group of amendments: that is, the nature of the support group and the extent to which people who are members of it will or will not be able to choose to participate in and benefit from the range of interventions that is proposed in the rolling out of pathways and in the clause.

I appreciate that we have had quite a full debate on this subject, but the purpose of the amendments is to invite the Minister to flesh out the way in which members of the support group will be able to access the support that might be available as a result of taking  part in a work-focused health-related assessment. In our previous debate, we talked about work-focused interviews and work-related activity, but work-focused health-related assessments were not the focus of that discussion, and I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about how members of the support group will be able to access the support provided for in the clause. Although it is clear that conditionality will not apply to members of the support group in relation to work-focused health-related assessments, it is none the less important, in the light of the previous debate, that members of that group should also be able to access that support.

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

Given that this is a health-related assessment, is it at least in the back of the hon. Gentleman’s mind that one aspect that might be considered is the appropriateness of provision for access-to-work facilities? As the explanatory notes make clear, the purpose of the assessments is to

“provide additional information about the claimant's functional capacity”.

If the individual has a particular medical condition, which is relevant to their chances of returning to work whether or not they are in the support group, there might be an opportunity to see how that capacity can be supplemented.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I suspect that we will deal with it in more detail on the next group of amendments, so I do not want to steal his colleagues’ thunder. However, access-to-work funding is an important part of ensuring that any employment and support allowance claimant has the best chance of getting back into work. That is why we talked earlier about whether it was possible to have a core assessment that informed decisions about access-to-work entitlements. People could then have those entitlements almost as soon as they had taken part in the assessment, rather than having to wait to get a job offer before seeing what access-to-work funding was available. With that, I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s response to this group of amendments.

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

I do not propose to tax you, Mr. Amess, or the Committee for long, because we discussed many of the arguments in the very generous time that you allowed us on the previous amendment. The basis of my party’s support for the amendment is the same as that for our support of the earlier amendment: we want to ensure that the new packages are as available to the members of the support group as they are to members of the work-related activity group. Access to the work-focused health-related assessment is obviously crucial to that.

Will the Under-Secretary clarify a point regarding the work-focused, health-related assessment? As I understand it, the assessment will be a positive interview and will focus on a customer’s capability—on what they might be able to do in the employment market. In so far as it is undertaken for people who are part of the support package, however, will it also look at any part-time, voluntary and community work and  any full-time and part-time courses that they might be able to undertake? People might be able to undertake those activities as a stepping stone towards full-time employment or as a goal in themselves, if that is their or their advisers’ realistic assessment of what is appropriate.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I am delighted to be under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess.

By way of introduction, let me say that I was fascinated by the previous debate on clause 9 and by some of the comments that were made, not least because, under the previous Conservative Government, I used to manage employment schemes for the most disadvantaged of people. The debate was an interesting exchange of views, because money was an object then and unit costs were a difficulty, so I want to congratulate Her Majesty’s official Opposition on travelling such a long way from the days of the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Huntrose—

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I shall give way in a moment.

Back then, people such as myself in the voluntary sector had no room for negotiation over unit costs, even over those people who were furthest from the labour market and most disadvantaged. I do not want to reopen the debate, but I thought it an interesting observation by way of introduction.

Mr. Huntrose—

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I was very lax in my chairmanship of the previous amendment, so I should ask the hon. Gentleman to be careful not to reopen the debate.

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

With that stricture, I shall just say that the Under-Secretary was generous in congratulating Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition on their position on this debate. I repay those congratulations by congratulating her Government on understanding the importance of a strong, stable and growing economy as the foundation for all the support that we are able to give to these important programmes.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I shall not rise to the bait, except to say that the Labour party always understood the importance of a strong and stable economy. We understood also that all people should share in the benefits of a strong and stable economy, which was not always the philosophy of the Conservative party.

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

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, I fear that we may be trying the patience of Mr. Amess.

Mr. Boswellrose—

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

All right then, since the hon. Gentleman is nice.

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

I promise that I shall not abuse this opportunity. I simply want to ask the Under-Secretary one question, because I was puzzled and slightly alarmed by what she said. I inferred from her remarks that the Government’s position is that money is no object, because she seemed to congratulate the Opposition on having got us to that position—an argument that I do not necessarily concede. If only for the reassurance of her colleagues, will she confirm that she does not regard the Government’s position as one in which money is no object?

Mrs. McGuirerose—

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. Before the Under-Secretary replies and no matter how nice the hon. Gentleman is, I ask her to proceed.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Amess, for that little indulgence late on a Tuesday afternoon.

I turn to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I admit to being a little confused about his contribution tothe debate. I do not know what he thought his amendments would do, but I fear that their consequences would be greater than he describes.

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

It is clear what the amendments would do. They would delete references to the support group in several clauses. The purpose of the amendments is to draw out from the Under-Secretary how members of the support group will in practice access support under the terms not only of the clause before us, but others. I made it clear that the amendments are probing. To some extent, my questions were answered in the previous debate, but that debate did not touch on support group members’ access to the work-focused health-related assessments in any great detail. Can the Under-Secretary provide further information on that?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

First, in case I do the hon. Gentleman a disservice in what I am about to say, may I confirm that he and his party support the inclusion of a support group within the new benefits system?

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

Having known the Under-Secretary for a little while now, I am sure that she would not seek to do me a disservice in any of her remarks. Given the structure of the benefit, the inclusion of the support group makes sense. As I said in a previous Committee sitting—I do not want to try your patience by going on for too long, Mr. Amess—I strongly believe that a more constructive reform of the benefits system would be a move towards a single working age benefit, with which support for the extra costs of disability were met through benefits such as the disability living allowance, which are payable irrespective of whether someone is in work. However, the purpose of these amendments is to probe the  Government’s intentions on the making available to members of the support group the support in this clause and others.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I am not much clearer at the end of that contribution than I was at the beginning, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman through some of the issues that he has raised. First, I confirm that the letter that he received from the Secretary of State states the position. I understand that it clarified a comment that the Secretary of State made on Second Reading, and that he was anxious to ensure that the correct position was relayed to the hon. Gentleman.

Secondly, I shall deal with work-focused health-related assessments. I appreciate that we are attempting to bring about a significant change in the way in which the reformed PCA process will deliver for people on the new benefit. I hope that I can give some comfort to colleagues here, and organisations outside Parliament, when I say that we want the new PCA process to underpin the approach of the new welfare reform programme. I think that we can all agree that, to a lesser or greater extent, people were often left to their own devices with very little or no intervention. The new process will move that work-focused health-related assessment on to being a far more supportive and focused tool with which to assist people to get back to work.

The hon. Member for Daventry said that the WFHRA—one of these days we will come up with shorter titles for some of these things—was very much about looking at some of the health-related interventions that might be of assistance to individual claimants when they are on the benefit. It will also allow us the opportunity to identify at a fairly early stage some of the adaptations that might be necessary to support a person going back to work, or often into work for the first time.

We have talked about medical and social models, but the reformed PCA underpins the fact that for many disabled people and people with limiting conditions, solutions regarding physical barriers or adaptations that have not been made, which they perhaps did not think could be made, would allow them to go back to work. It is about building some of those decisions and attitudes into the process pretty early on, because it is important that when people are work-ready, they know what adaptations are necessary, and, more important, that the employer or prospective employer, organisation or company knows exactly what is necessary.

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

I think that the Under-Secretary will accept that I do not seek to pick a quarrel with her on that matter. I am pleased by what she just said in response to my comments. Does she agree that that might well include some appreciation of whether the individual involved has access to public or private transport? Otherwise, people simply cannot get past first base, particularly, although not exclusively, in rural areas.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Although that consideration would not necessarily be part of the work-focused health-related assessment, it will be very much part of the assessment and the support that will be given by the adviser further on in the process.

I shall deal with one or two other issues that have been raised in this short debate. Although I cannot remember who asked about regulations that have not yet been published—it might have been the hon. Member for South-West Surrey—we hope to have those ready for the Lords Committee stage, so we are obviously working on them now.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the capability report and discussed the issue with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The capability report has been an important advance in how the assessments are made. However, the new report will build on the capability report and, as I have indicated in relation to the assessment, provide additional information, such as how people will be able to overcome some of the barriers to work and the situations to which the hon. Member for Daventry alluded. We understand that, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, there may be some issues of process in the transfer of information. That is why we piloted pathways, rather than going into them hell for leather.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised the issue of support group access to the work-focused health-related assessment. A person who has been assessed to go into the support group can ask for the work-focused health-related assessment at the end of that first assessment. That will be undertaken by a different person, but those concerned can ask to move to that additional part of the process if that is what they so wish.

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

I am grateful for that clarification, which is helpful in two ways: first, in clarifying that members of the support group will have access, which is very positive. Secondly, the Under-Secretary said that the assessment would be carried out by a different person. Can she clarify whether that will be the case for all ESA recipients who are invited to take part in their work-focused health-related assessment, at the end of their limited capability for work assessment and limited capability for work-related activity assessment? Will the same person or different persons be involved?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

Obviously, we are learning from experience about how best to connect all those elements of the process. There are three elements to a single process. Some of that assessment may be carried out by other professionals or those with some experience—not only on the medical side, but on the occupational health side. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort.

The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have probed certain issues of detail, but I would obviously ask him to withdraw the amendment, which would, as I hope he appreciates—and as he in fact realised—put those people who had gone into the support group into a mandatory position for all the other elements of the employment and support allowance.

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

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s response. She has raised a number of issues that I might wish to probe further in later amendments. However, having probed the matters that I was concerned about, 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. 229, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 10, page 8, line 8, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 231, in clause 10, page 8, line 11, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 232, in clause 10, page 8, line 18, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 233, in clause 10, page 8, line 40, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 234, in clause 10, page 8, line 45, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 235, in clause 10, page 9, line 2, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 236, in clause 10, page 9, line 5, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

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

Given the Committee’s desire to make progress, we do not need to have a huge debate on this set of amendments.

There is a question over the wording in the Bill; I think that the Government have inadvertently made a mistake. The amendments deal with clause 10 in which references are made to “health-related” assessments. We would like that wording to be changed to “health and disability-related” assessments. The Committee will understand the important difference between a health condition and a disability, and it is clear that the work-focused health-related assessment, as described in clause 10, is meant to focus on the work people can do despite an adverse health condition or a disability.

The purpose of the amendments therefore is to ensure that we understand that many conditions that can limit a person’s capability for work are not health conditions, but disabilities such as learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, blindness, deafness and so on. We want to make it clear in the amendments that the work-focused health-related assessment will cover disabilities and not just health conditions and ensure that the wording of the Bill makes it clear that, just as we said in discussions on earlier clauses, it is vital for personal advisers and people conducting the PCAs to understand the difference between a health condition and a disability. It is important therefore that the wording of the Bill makes it clear that we as legislators understand that important difference.

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

These amendments are helpful in making clear the extent and scope of what is described as the work-focused health-related assessment. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the range of disabilities that might not be captured at the moment. I took it from the Under-Secretary’s earlier comments on access to work—perhaps she will confirm this—that the Government intend the assessment to consider some of the disability-related issues that have been described, not least because, as I understood from her previous response, that process could lead to a recommendation for reasonable adjustments that might cause the person to be subject to access-to-work funding and therefore assist them with returning to work.

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

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that whereas my hon. Friend made it clear that not all disabilities are health related, it might be that the Government are arguing that limited capability for work—the clause 8 test—automatically constitutes a disability? That might be how they are approaching the matter.

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

I am grateful for that intervention, and I shall pass that on to the Under-Secretary. I am not sure that it is for me to interpret the Government’s intentions, but that was an important point that she might like to clarify.

If the work-focused health-related assessment is intended to have the wider scope described in this debate, the Government, without wishing to make the assessment’s title even longer, should think about whether their language is appropriate. As the Under-Secretary knows, language is important in many aspects of this debate. She might wish to think about whether the name of that assessment is correct and bring forward Government amendments to change it.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I echo what the hon. Gentleman said; language, especially when it comes to learning difficulties and mental health, is incredibly important. The stigma generated by the incorrect use of language is unwelcome. On that point, there seems to be an opportunity to modify the language marginally so that certain types of stigma do not continue inadvertently and unnecessarily.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I agree with all Committee members’ that language is important. That is why “health”—not “health and disability”—is mentioned in the clause. Although, superficially, the amendments appear to be minimal in their effect, they could widen the scope of the assessments in a way that the Government do not think would be helpful. To some extent, the hon. Member for Daventry mentioned that in passing in his last contribution and he highlighted it in discussion on the earlier group of amendments.

The assessment is deliberately designed to focus on the support that people will need to overcome the impact on their mind and body caused by health conditions. It is not necessarily about the disability, but about the health-related barriers that prevent an individual from moving into work. The hon. Gentleman mentioned those with learning disabilities.  That is a good example. Earlier today, he highlighted the fact that often people assume that individuals with learning disabilities cannot suffer from other health-related conditions. We are trying to be specific about such matters in this part of the Bill. It is not aboutnot recognising the difference between health and disability; it is about saying that, in some circumstances, health-related issues and not matters relating to a person’s disability can be involved.

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

I am not sure that I understand what the Under-Secretary is saying. We are not saying that this measure should not relate to a health assessment, but that it should just relate to a health or a disability-related assessment.

Let me give the Under-Secretary a practical example. If someone in a wheelchair, who therefore has significant mobility problems, wants to engage with the labour market, that is not a health issue; they are in a wheelchair with a long-term if not a permanent condition. Clearly, some types of job will be suitable for them—for example, answering the phone on reception or working in an office—and other jobs, such as cleaning, will not be suitable. I understood that the purpose of the work-focused health-related assessment was to help a person understand what jobs and what part of the labour market they might be able to engage with. Surely, taking into account the disability of someone in a wheelchair is an extremely important part of the assessment.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

It is an important part of the process for that individual, but although the hon. Gentleman has given the Committee a good example to illustrate our point, I am not sure whether there is necessarily in all circumstances a health-related issue for a disabled person. The disadvantages and barriers that he has rightly highlighted can be dealt with in differentparts of the process. However, it is not necessarily appropriate for that to be considered within the health-related assessment part of the process.

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

I am grateful to the Minister, but that is exactly my point. As I understand it, there is no other part of the process where a person’s disability—the fact that they have mobility problems—will be taken into account with respect to how best to help them engage in the labour market. It is precisely their disability that needs to be taken into account if the work-focused health-related assessment process is to do its job.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I give way to the hon. Member for Daventry.

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

I find myself, not for the first time, thinking very much along the same lines as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey. It is important that the Minister should be able to explain to us where the disability issues are picked up, if it is not in this clause. It could be that they fall under the appraisal for access to work, but that is work or employment-contingent.

May I say something that is designed to be less critical of the Minister? The other day, when discussing condition-management programmes, I learned that they are exactly what they say they are: designed to encourage individuals to manage their condition. They do not necessarily imply a pledge to remove the condition, sadly, because it may not be removable. Does the Minister have in her mind, in respect of this clause and in the argument that she is developing, some obverse of this, where one is trying to find out what is within the health framework and can be altered, rather than what cannot be altered and will have to be managed in terms of getting close to the labour market?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

As both my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have indicated, this is part of a process. I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point of view that perhaps there is an implication that we do not recognise the difference between health and disability. He, and others, might need confidence that we will take into account the support needs of disabled people, which are not necessarily in all circumstances health-related. I reassure him and the Committee that the physical barriers that need to be dealt with for a disabled person to move into the world of work will be dealt with during the work-focused interviews. That is the correct and proper place for them.

We have also clearly indicated that in the health-related assessment we will have an early opportunity to examine some of the issues relating to adaptation, which could then be carried on as part of the process. Obviously the regulations are due to be published, so I will not ask hon. Members just to accept my assurances; it will be part of the regulations, so that we can continue to give people confidence that we are genuinely about moving people who have no access to work, through support, whether it be given through some of our other programmes or health interventions, to a situation where they can genuinely choose work as an option.

I hope that the assurances that I have given the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, together with what will be in the draft regulations—I fully understand that I am expecting him to take this on trust—will meet some of the concerns that he has raised. We have used the word “health” very specifically and deliberately in this clause.

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

I just need to understand one point. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. On this sort of issue, I would not be at all unwilling to take things on trust, because despite our sparring today, we are all trying to achieve the same thing in this Committee. I want to clarify one point. She seems to be saying that I was wrong to say that this was a question of language. She seems to be saying that the work-focused health-related assessment will in fact not look at people’s disabilities; it will look at people’s health, and therefore at issues such as what happens where someone has a disability and a mental health condition that needs attention. The point of this part of the process is not at all to look at people’s disabilities. If I understand the Minister correctly, she  is saying that dealing with the issues relating to their disabilities will be taken care of later in the process. Can she confirm that?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree more than is currently obvious. Not all health problems are disabling and not all disabilities are caused by health conditions. We are talking about where we support people during the process. The issues to do with barriers, to highlight the social model aspect of disability, will be dealt with as part of the work-focused interviews. The health-related assessment is very much part of the process of whether we should be looking to see, for example, whether people would benefit from additional physiotherapy. I am talking about issues that are related directly to their mind and body in terms of health. As I said, I think we agree far more than is obvious. The assessment is part of a process. We recognise that, as part of the health-related assessment, we will take the opportunity to look at some of the adaptations that might be necessary, but the focus is specifically on health, not on disability.

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

I think we are getting there, but it has just occurred to me that we do not appear to have mentioned that there is a specific requirement in subsection (7) for the assessment to be carried out by

“a health care professional approved by the Secretary of State”.

That could be a number of people. For example, it could be a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist—occupational therapy is and has been for a number of years my particular interest. From what the Minister said, it is not inconceivable that the assessment would be carried out by an occupational therapist, who would be concerned not only with the functionality of the individual but, often and typically, with the conditions under which that individual would be required either to live their life or to have a working life later on. We move from the narrow, symptom-driven approach to one that is going towards a fuller appraisal, but is at the same time health-driven and professional, rather than being purely advice about how to go to work.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

That is a helpful contribution. I did not allude to that part of the clause because we are due to discuss amendments relating to it later. The Welfare Reform Bill is linked to many other aspects of our programme promoting equality for disabled people. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that; indeed, I know that he is very supportive of it. Examples are the extension and strengthening of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments. All those are issues that we have to consider horizontally as opposed to considering just the specific issues in this Bill. There is a dovetailing of responsibilities and of rights.

I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey will not take what I have said just on trust, given that I have given him assurances, but will recognise that, further on in our process, we will have a set of draft regulations that I think will meet the requirements and address the issues that he has raised here this afternoon. In the light of that, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for her responses. I completely agree with her that these issues need to be considered holistically because, for a disabled person, the employment and support allowance will be only a part of their benefits package, albeit a very important part. In that spirit, I am grateful to the Chairman for allowing us latitude to talk about the general issue of work, disincentives and the benefits system, which I know is of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

I think I will accept the Minister’s assurances; I shall explain why. It is not an argument that the Minister made herself, but if she is saying that this is really a health-related assessment, not a disability-focused assessment, I can see some benefits in a purely health-related assessment, because we do not pay enough attention to the health issues that affect disabled people. A purely health-related assessment could remove a major stumbling block. I am thinking of the mental health issues, for example.

Russell Brown (PPS (Rt Hon Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State), Scotland Office; Dumfries & Galloway, Labour)

I would just like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he said in a previous intervention, rightly, that language is important. We have been talking about his amendment, which says “health and disability-related”, but the record will show that he used the terminology “health or disability-related”, which makes a significant difference.

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

I do not want to get into a discussion about semantics with the hon. Gentleman and whether there is a substantive difference in meaning between work-focused health or disability-related assessment and work-focused health and disability-related assessment. An assessment for disability and health could mean an assessment for disability or health. The purpose of my amendment stands.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that language is important, but I think the Minister is saying that the language is correct in this case and that the assessment should be health-focused. That is important if we want to help disabled people to get back on the road to engagement in the labour market because of the issues we raised earlier about the complicated and poorly understood interaction between mental health issues and disabilities, and the fact that we know that mental health issues affect a large proportion of the people who go on to incapacity benefit. I see some benefit in a health-focused interview and on that basis 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 amendment No. 26, in clause 10, page 8, line 21, leave out “, within a prescribed period,”.

The purpose of the amendment is simply to probe the meaning of the term “prescribed period” in the regulations to subsection (2)(f)(ii). This part of the Bill imposes on an individual a condition to providewithin a time limit a good cause for not attendinga work-focused, health-related assessment. It is important to discuss this because someone may have a good cause that leads them to be unable to make contact or they may be incapacitated as a result of their  condition and unable to show within a prescribed limit good cause for not attending. We do not have the draft regulations for clause 10, but we have them for work-focused interviews and the prescribed time limit is five days. Is it the Minister’s intention that the five-day time limit should also apply to the time within which someone must demonstrate good cause for not attending a work-focused health-related assessment?

Wayne David (Caerphilly, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a time limit should be specified in the Bill, or does he simply want a prescribed time to be deleted?

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am probing the Government’s intentions, particularly on how they intend to deal with cases when someone has a good cause that has made it impossible for them to notify the Department within the five-day period specified in the regulations. The way in which the work-focused interview regulations are drawn up suggests that no matter how good the cause, if someone fails to notify what that good cause is within five days they will be subject to a sanction. That seems to be problematic, to say the least.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind the eventuality of someone who suffers bipolar disorder and finds that they are low for a much longer period than five days and are functionally incapable of communicating that fact to the Department? That would not necessarily absolve people with other conditions, but suggests that the test needs to be sensitive.

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

The hon. Gentleman sets out an example of exactly the sort of circumstances that I have in mind. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that, in such cases, although the five-day time limit—if that is intended for the health-related assessments—is what the Government have in mind for the regulations, sufficient latitude will be given so that in the example to which I have referred or that cited by the hon. Member for Daventry some leeway can be taken into account in such cases. Safeguards should certainly be in place so that they are applied in such examples before sanctions are imposed.

For example, the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Daventry might lead people notto attend a work-focused health-related assessment. Understandably, for whatever reason in light of their condition or impairment, they might not be able to get back to the Department to explain their non-attendance and may then have their benefits sanctioned in the way that has been described. I am relying again on the work-focused interview regulations that describe in detail the sanctioning process and the amountof sanction, not the work-focused health-related assessment regulations because we do not have them. I am sure that members of the Committee would not want to get into such circumstances. While they may be few in number, they could have a significant impact on the lives of those whom I am describing. With that, I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s response.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee about those matters. He has rightly pointed out that we do not yet have the regulations in respect of clause 10. I wish to say at the outset that it is not our intention to make life difficult for people for whom life may already be difficult. We recognise that, in some situations, there is very good cause why people cannot respond within a reasonable time. For the sake of the record, a reasonable time will be five days, but it will be five working days: it will not include Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas day, Boxing day and the September weekend in Glasgow.

At the same time as recognising those issues, we must accept that a time frame often allows people to concentrate on what they have to do, which may be important in their lives. May I describe some of the experience of the pathways to work pilots? We rarely used the sanctions method in work-focused interviews in the pilots. It is not our intention to slap sanctions on people from the point that they take themselves out of the process. If people have a mental health condition or a disability that will impact on their ability to undertake some elements of the process, of course, we will go out of our way to ensure that their particular circumstances are recognised.

Wayne David (Caerphilly, Labour)

I am enormously encouraged by what the Under-Secretary of State said, but can she confirm that, in fact, the sanctions under pathways are as low as 0.8 per cent? I am sure that she will agree that that is very low indeed.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I know that my hon. Friend has some experience, if not from his constituency, then near it, of some of the successes of pathways. The sanctions mechanism is there. I suppose that he and I understand why people become upset about it, rightly, given that they are vulnerable people who often have many other things to deal with in their lives at certain times. I want to reassure the Committee that it is our intention to recognise the impact on the lives of individuals, which may make it difficult for them, yet at the same time we believe that it is important to set a time frame, so that the information can come to us. It is not for the benefit of Jobcentre Plus, but for the benefit of individuals, so that they can get themselves on to the right benefit with the right support at the right time.

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

I fully understand the balanced nature of the case made by the Under-Secretary of State and I agree, but will there still be the power for an officer of her Department to waive the provision on the five-day rule if there are felt to be extenuating circumstances? Many years ago, in circumstances I need not go into and that had nothing to do with my own health, I effectively had to take sufficient time out of my life to be able to square my parliamentary expenses within the six-week time limit. I just managed it in time, but these things occasionally happen and while I am sure that the Minister does not want to say to the Committee, “Make a habit of failing to meet your obligations”, there may be cases where it is entirely appropriate.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I can give the hon. Gentleman an example that will illustrate his point. If someone is in hospital and they cannot reasonably be expected to attend a health-related assessment, obviously we will  need to recognise that in those circumstances, it would be utterly unreasonable for us to expect that person to deliver themselves to an assessment in the five days. In those circumstances, for example, we would give a further month during which they could bring forward evidence leading to a reconsideration of any sanction that may have been imposed. We wish to ensure that the system is as flexible as possible while still recognising that this is a rights and responsibilities agenda and that, within the process, we need to put some milestones along the road.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I have one concern. We are talking about rights and responsibilities, but clearly to conduct a health assessment or any of these assessments, the assessors have to be available. In the circumstance where somebody presents themselves, but there is a strike or the person they are supposed to see is not there, what is the redress for that claimant and where does the responsibility lie? There have been many examples of that happening in other public services. What happens in this case?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform said that strikes are at an all-time low, so that is not the example that would immediately come to mind. The hon. Gentleman has raised the individual’s competency to get the information or, if there is a bus strike and the person relies on public transport, to get to the assessment. Obviously, that would be the sort of issue taken into account.

Our aim in the Bill is to assist people into work and to build in as much support as we can, not to put additional barriers in the way. There should still be a prescribed time and that should be five days, but there will be circumstances, to which we will ensure our advisers are attuned, that will allow people a bit more flexibility.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I thank the Under-Secretary for her generosity. I am raising a serious point about the availability of the actual assessor and what happens if the person arrives to be assessed and the assessor is not available for whatever reason. We have a huge variable here as the Government are talking about letting contracts to the private sector and one never knows what will arise in that kind of scenario. There may be a situation where there are thousands of people around the country who are unable to present for their assessment. What is the safety net and where is there a line in the regulations that would pick up that eventuality?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I sometimes fear that we think that unless something is written in law or in regulation, it will not happen. I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that, if all the doctors in Atos Origin—there are 243 of them—go on strike one day and people turn up for their health-related assessment, they will have a rescheduled appointment and any expenses incurred will be reimbursed. Does that satisfy the hon. Gentleman?

In that light, I ask the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her clarification. She has offered me the reassurance that I was looking for, not least in the suggestion that a further month would be allowed for extreme cases, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 10, page 9, line 4, at end insert—

‘(d) for pilot schemes to vary the time during a claimfor an employment and support allowance at which the work-focused health-related assessment is conducted.’.

This is an important amendment. It is analogous in a way to the debate that we had about melding together the tests in clauses 8 and 9, and the Minister gave a very satisfactory reply to our amendment to the effect that there were legal reasons why there had to be discrete silos of assessments in clauses 8, 9 and 10. However, I need to return to the question of timing and lumping together the three conceptually different tests all at the same time and in the same room.

Amendment No. 49 would allow the piloting of the timing of the work-focused health-related assessment that follows the PCA. The sequence would be the clause 8 test to decide whether someone got the allowance, the clause 9 test to decide whether they came under the support component or the work-related activity component, and, if they came under the latter, they would move on to the work-focused health-related assessment. That is where a potential problem arises. Undertaking the work-focused health-related assessment immediately after the work-related activity assessment could be confusing. For a start, the health-related assessment will take place when the outcome of the PCA might not necessarily be known to the claimant—in fact, it probably will not be.

The PCA assessment and the work-focused health-related assessment perform two separate functions, to establish first whether someone gets an allowance and secondly what support and adaptations someone who is capable of work might need to get them moving towards work. To ask the individual to respond sequentially—a matter of minutes might elapse between the two tests—could be confusing for the claimant. Those concerns—someone will be trying to show that they are ill enough to get the allowance and also having to show some residual functional capability—might be pushing in separate directions. If I were in that room, I would want to show that I was deserving of an allowance and needed support but at the same time I would be told, “What can you do? You’re not that badly off, because we’re trying to show what capability you can display to us in this health-related assessment”.

That tension is acknowledged in the review of the personal capability assessment that was published with the draft regulations. On page 19, it states:

“The timing of the work-focused health-related assessment (whether it should immediately follow the benefit entitlement assessment, or whether it should be carried out at a subsequent appointment) has been the subject of some concern and difference of opinion.”

So the Government acknowledged that difference of opinion in a document published just before these Committee proceedings. It continues:

“There are advantages to carrying it”—

the health-related assessment—

“out at the same appointment: not least the convenience for the claimant of only having to attend one appointment instead of two.”

That is the Government’s logic. It continues:

“Any perceived conflict of interest”—

as I have described—

“could be managed by appropriate explanation of the different nature and purpose of the two assessments.”

There is logic in the Government’s position: they are saying that things will be more convenient. There will not be the travel time and transport costs associated with having a work-focused health-related assessment at a different time of day, or even on a different day, and we can understand why that may be in claimants’ interests. However, I am still struggling, as are some outside groups, to resolve the tension between the two matters that are being demonstrated: capability on the one hand and eligibility for allowance on the other. Someone trying to show capability might see that as compromising the results that they had achieved on the personal capability assessment. They will be doing it within a matter of minutes after a conceptually very different test. I assume that the same person will conduct both tests and that that the claimant will be in the same room with that person, but showing radically different things.

The Royal National Institute of the Blind refers to the two interviews being focused on very different subjects, thereby

“potentially confusing the claimant and leading to anxiety that information disclosed in the WFHRA could be used against them in relation to the PCA decision.”

The words—

“could be used against them”

are quite powerful. That might rightly or wrongly be the perception of a claimant in a situation in which they have to undertake two tests one after the other in the same room.

The amendment seeks not to strike down such arrangements but merely to introduce pilot schemes to vary the time at which a health-related assessment might be undertaken. The pilots could experiment with doing it the day after, or the week after, or at some other time. That would sit happily with the ethos of experimentation, testing, stress testing and the other propositions in the Bill to which Ministers have already subscribed by way of the dummy runs that will occur for parts of the regime to which we shall come in the next few clauses. Ministers have had open minds, and they have said that they will take best practice, and adapt and modify it between now and the time when the allowance is up and running in 2008. In that spirit of consensual piloting, I hope that Ministers will give some consideration to the amendment.

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

I wanted to add a brief point of clarification to the case for the amendment that has just been made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. It relates to a point that we debated earlier: the question of when decisions about benefit entitlement should be made, and of whether sanctions apply to a work-focused health-related assessment. In the earlier debate, the Under-Secretary made it clear, I think, that if the first assessment occurred immediately following the assessment under clause 8 or clause 9, because the decision would not have been made by the decision maker, the sanction would not apply. If so, because sanctions can apply in more general terms to work-focused health-related assessments, a degree of confusion could attach to whether sanctions applied in the case of certain timings. The piloting for which the amendment provides would allow experimentation to take place.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman foresee, as I do, a theoretical situation hoving into view, in which an individual has done the clause 9 test and is convincedin his or her mind that he or she has qualified forthe support component? They do not receive a determination on it straight away, because the decision is not made that minute. They are then asked by one of the assessors to do a work-focused health-related assessment, and the individual is quite convinced that it will not apply to them because they are in the support component. Why should they have to start demonstrating capability for the work-related activity component, for which they think they will not be eligible? We can see a situation in which someone says in good faith, “This work-focused health-related assessment does not apply to me. I’m not doing it.” Is a sanction applicable in those circumstances? It would be very unreasonable if it were.

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

That is exactly the sort of circumstance that we need a wee bit more clarity about. From my understanding of what Ministers have said in this Committee, at the end of the assessment under clauses 8 and 9, the Atos Origin employee will make it clear to the claimant whether the result of their assessment will recommend to the decision maker that they be part of the support group. However, I understand that the actual decision about entitlement is taken by the decision maker and not by the Atos Origin doctor. If that is the case and someone who says in good faith, “I think I am entitled to be a member of the support group,” and who is told that they are not, may wish to appeal. If he then turns down the opportunity to take part in the work-focused health-related assessment at that time, it seems only fair that the sanction should not apply in that circumstance.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I thought that this was a straightforward amendment, but I see that it is slightly more complicated than I thought. I do not know whether it has been made complicated, but it is slightly more complicated than was initially obvious.

I advise the Committee that we should not assume that there are not occasions when health professionals assess people for both capability and incapacity. It is one of the skills in occupational health that a professional can look at two aspects of a person’s  incapability at one time. In some respects, we are in danger of assuming that neither the health professional nor the individual can make the transition from one set of circumstances to another. I mention that as a caveat at the beginning.

I reassure the Committee that all the processes that we are discussing will occur during the 13-week assessment period. During that period, there will be no sanctions. We are setting ourselves a firm deadline for that initial assessment. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentlemen some comfort about where and when the decision making and the sanctions will occur, and I hope that we will not develop the argument totally around the issue of sanctions. As we heard earlier, sanctions form a tiny proportion of the activity in pathways to work. We intend that to happen through the new system.

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

I do not mean to disrupt the Under-Secretary’s flow, but I thought that I heard her say that sanctions will not apply during the 13-week assessment phase. However, my understanding of the clause is that regulations may make provision for reducing the amount of ESA payable when a claimant fails without good cause to take part in a health-related assessment. Is that right?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I hope that I can clarify the position. The direct question is, “When will the WFHRA be sanctionable?” It will be sanctionable only after the assessment phase period, when the full benefit is in payment and the customer refuses to attend. There could be, for example, a second work-related health assessment. That is what clause 10 alludes to. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman.

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

This is extremely important and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. Will she say, in answer to the questions posed by the Liberal Democrat spokesman and me, that if a claimant rejects a health-related assessment under clause 10 that takes place within the first 13 weeks, that cannot, under any  circumstances, result in a sanction being placed on them—provided that it is refused within the first13 weeks?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

If the person continues to refuse after the 13-week assessment, of course, we have the option to decide what action to take. I hope that that clarifies the position for hon. Members.

I shall deal quickly with another matter, because I appreciate that I may be under time pressure because of a vote downstairs. Our preference is that the work-focused, health-related assessment should take place at the same time as the other assessment, but we are prepared to test the issue to see whether that would be appropriate. I use the word “test”, not “pilot”. I say to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that clause 18 will allow us to do that. Therefore, we already have the power to undertake some of the testing that he and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned. In that light, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

I am most grateful to the Minister, because she has clarified areas that seemed a bit murky in relation to sanctions and in relation to the proposition that there might be testing. If she does not want to use the word “pilot”—well, she says “potato” and I say “po-tah-toe”,—I shall not fuss about its use. If she is giving an undertaking to the effect that there will be some testing of the proposition that the health-related assessment should take place immediately after the clause 9 assessment, and if that is being considered, that will give heart to many people reading the Hansard report of these proceedings; it certainly gives me heart. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.