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

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 10, page 9, line 17, at end add

‘who has undertaken such training in work-related needs and support as may be prescribed.’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 261, in clause 10, page 9, line 17, at end add—

‘(9) A health care professional will not be approved by the Secretary of State unless he has undertaken such training in disabilities and health conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe.’.

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

Thank you, Mr. Amess. It is good to be under your chairmanship today. The weather has somewhat improved since our previous sitting, and long may that continue. I gather from the radio this morning that I will be confronting storms, snow, ice and all sorts of other things when I return to my constituency this evening, so I hope that the atmosphere in the Committee this morning will be more in keeping with the atmosphere outside than with that in my constituency this evening.

Both the amendments would introduce training requirements into clause 10, which relates to work-focused health-related assessments. Amendment No. 31 specifies training in work-related needs and support. Amendment No. 261 refers to a health care professional having

“training in disabilities and health conditions”.

Both amendments seek to probe the Government’s intentions regarding the training of those who will carry out work-focused health-related assessments, and I gather that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will respond to the debate, so my comments are addressed to her. I raise the issue because it was suggested in our previous debate that the assessments could sometimes be undertaken by different health care professionals from those who will carry out the limited capability for work and the limited capability for work-related activity assessments, and we had a good debate about the training needs of those involved.

My key point is that it is important for Ministers to make it clear that they will ensure that those who carry out these important work-focused health-related  assessments—we have discussed their functions before, so I do not need to go into them again—have a proper understanding of the wide range of disabilities, impairments and health conditions that those they are talking to might have. That is the burden of amendment No. 261. If they have that understanding, they should—this is the burden of amendment No. 31—be able to understand such conditions and impairments and make health care recommendations that might enhance people’s ability to undertake work-related activity. With those few remarks, I ask the Under-Secretary to set out the Government’s intentions.

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

May I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Amess? I look forward very much to serving under you as we discuss all the issues before us.

I want briefly to add to the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). When we discussed training earlier, the Under-Secretary gave us an assurance that people would be provided with all the training necessary to ensure that what is envisaged in the Bill happens. However, I wonder whether she could respond a little more fully on that issue, because there are widespread concerns among disabled people and the organisations that represent them about the level of training to be given to those who do the assessments and to Jobcentre Plus staff. I know that the Under-Secretary takes a great interest in this issue, so could she say a little more specifically about what training will be undertaken to ensure that people understand hidden disabilities? People with learning disabilities, for example, are concerned that those disabilities might not be understood because they are not visible.

There is widespread concern about these issues, and I know that the Department will have the right intentions, but with the greatest respect to Ministers, it has not always delivered to the highest standard. Will the Under-Secretary therefore give some reassurances in that respect?

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

Like my colleagues, I am delighted to be here and to be under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. It must be lovely to be the Chairman of a Committee, by the way. I do not know of any other group of MPs who get so many compliments so early in the morning—and sometimes even late at night; but I shall not go down that road.

I can offer the Opposition considerable reassurance. I understand the reason for their concern and for their wanting matters to be spelled out in Committee. As currently happens with Atos Origin doctors, all the health care professionals who will be involved in the process will undergo training specified and agreed by the Department’s chief medical adviser before being approved by the Secretary of State to carry out assessments. That will ensure that health professionals who carry out the work-focused health-related assessments will have been trained to the standard that the Secretary of State expects and thinks appropriate. A health care professional who has not been trained to that level will not be approved.

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

I am reassured by that. Will the Under-Secretary further reassure the Committee that the number of trained people will be sufficient to provide capacity in the system to manage any surge that might happen at the beginning of the roll-out, such as was described by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) with reference to pathways to work in her constituency?

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

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance because we have set quite exacting targets for the gateway process and in our expectations of the health professionals. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that that works properly, and that will be part of the continuing discussions with Atos Origin. We also need flexibility to change the training requirements,as may be necessary in the future. That is one reason why the amendments are unacceptable—although I appreciate that they are probing amendments.

I particularly want to reassure the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) that hidden disabilities will be one aspect of the training for the relevant health professionals. I hope that the whole Committee will accept our commitment: the training currently prescribed by the Secretary of State requires each practitioner to have a personalised continuous development plan, which includes models relating to a wide spectrum of medical subjects, including specific conditions. Practitioners must, in addition, undertake a series of modules on non-medical subjects such as cultural awareness. They may have to work with broader issues than just the medical side in their capacity as health professionals undertaking such important assessments.

I hope that that reassures the Committee, and, in particular, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, so that he will feel able 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 those remarks. She has given the reassurance that I wanted, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

With your leave, Mr. Amess, there are some broader issues about the conditionality regime in the Bill that I should like briefly to draw to the attention of the Committee, and on which I should like to seek some assurances from the Under-Secretary of State. Those considerations pertain not just to clause 10 but to clauses 11 to 13, all of which come under the heading “Conditionality” in the Bill. I hope that discussing the matter now may help us to expedite proceedings on those clauses.

In our sitting on Tuesday afternoon the Minister of State entered into a quite lively discussion about the level of funding for pathways to work. I should like to return to that. It is important to put it on the record that the Bill, understandably, and, provided that the reassurances that I seek are given, justifiably, makes it clear, as he said in language that I would endorse, that  it is based on the idea of responsibility. It is based on the idea that provided the support for individuals is in place and they are part of the work-related activity component, they have some degree of responsibility for availing themselves of that support. The Bill dwells at length on the individual’s responsibility, which is again understandable, given the nature of legislation in this area, but it does not dwell on the Government’s responsibilities.

I wish to press Under-Secretary of State a little on the reciprocal responsibility that exists on the part of the Government in exchange for the responsibility that individual claimants are being asked to undertake under these and other clauses relating to conditionality. I am sure that the Ministers would agree that it is important that the Government fully carry out their part of the bargain. It has been described as a something-for-something package: claimants are asked to give something in terms of responsibility and the Government undertake to provide something in terms of support to get them back into work. That is a reasonable proposition.

It is important to say that the Government have a particular responsibility, although it is not stated in the Bill, to reassure the Committee on a number of points. The first relates to funding, which we debated a little on Tuesday afternoon. I have carried out further work on that, partly as a result of the Minister of State’s prompting, building on written answers that he and his colleagues have provided to me over some months. I examined what the costs per claimant in the pathways regime were, and what they might be expected to be, given the predictions of the onflows on to incapacity benefit over the next few years, in the two-year period for which the £360 million has been allocated.

I do not wish to go through all the references in all the parliamentary questions on which this is based. However, if one takes into account all the different available elements in the pathways pilot areas within the choices package, the number of people who have been helped and the percentage of people who have been participating in the different elements of pathways, one comes to an estimate of the annual cost per claimant within the pathways project of £571 a head. My calculations, which are based on the figures that have been provided in answer to questions about the expected onflows on to IB—in other words, the new claimants to whom initially this is devoted— suggest that, even if the full £360 million were to be devoted entirely to the roll-out of pathways, which I shall come on to in a second, the annual funds per participant allocated for the national roll-out of pathways to work would be less than £327 a head.

I would be happy for Ministers to correct my figures or to give their own estimates. If the entire £360 million is to go to pathways, and one is talking only about new claimants over this period, on those calculations, there is a funding gap of £268 million.

On Tuesday, the Minister of State fairly made the point that the Government would spend whatever was necessary—that might not be an exact quote—and sought to make reassuring noises on this important point. I am delighted to hear reassuring noises from the Ministers in Committee, but I would be even more delighted and reassured to hear similar noises from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report about the sums  that will be spent. This is a serious point, because if we are telling employment and support allowance claimants that they are expected to be part of a conditionality regime, it is important to make it clear to them that the promised help will genuinely be available at the promised levels throughout the country. That is the first point on which I would be grateful for the Under-Secretary’s response. The equation is simple: if there are to be responsibilities and obligations, there must also be opportunities for people to obtain the help that they need.

The Under-Secretary may want to debate whether my calculations are accurate and whether the £360 million is insufficient, but there is a second serious question on which the Committee would like reassurance. What proportion of that £360 million will be spent on the pathways to work roll-out—I raised that earlier but, perhaps due to the temper of the debate, it was not addressed—and what will be spent on other things? I understand that Ministers will seek leave to start spending money on implementing aspects of the Bill in advance of Royal Assent—that is an established procedure—particularly on setting up the benefit, which is understandable as there is not much controversy about the benefit. If that is the intention, will the Under-Secretary explain what proportion of the £360 million will be spent on benefit administration—setting up computer systems and so on—so that the Committee will have a genuine idea of how much will be spent on providing support and assistance for ESA claimants and how much will be spent on the necessary administrative tasks that will underpin the benefits?

A third aspect, which again relates directly to the nature of the proposed conditionality regime, is the extent to which the pathways to work regime is successful for all groups of claimants. That was drawn to the Committee’s attention earlier, but I want to highlight two groups of claimants. The first is those for whom their first reason for claiming benefit is mental health, and I distinguish that from learning disabilities. Secondly, several charities representing older people have said that there is not much evidence that older workers have benefited from the pathways to work regime.

It is important that the Under-Secretary addresses that. Both older workers and those whose first reason for claiming benefit is mental health but who do not satisfy any of the 46 descriptors will eventually be subject to the conditionality regime for recipients of the work-related activity component. It is important that the Under-Secretary sets out what steps the Government are thinking about and what ideas they have to improve the available support within the pathways regime for those people. Given that the conditionality regime is the same, it is important that the Government make it clear how they will ensure that support and assistance is available through pathways. Pathways has been remarkably successful for some groups of claimants and that should be welcome on both sides of the Committee, but it has not been so successful for other groups.

On mental health, I draw the Under-Secretary’s attention to the work of Professor Lord Layard on depression and the availability of, for example, cognitive behaviour therapy services within the NHS. I wonder whether the  shortage of such services at the moment is one of the causes of the condition management programme being less successful for people in that category. Perhaps she will reflect on that.

These are broader considerations about the fairness of the proposed conditionality regime and the degree to which the Government are prepared to play their full part in the bargain. I fully accept the Under-Secretary’s good intentions, but the spending plans of some Ministers in the Department are subject to an annual reduction of, I believe, 5 per cent. over the next two or three years. In that context, how does the Under-Secretary foresee funds coming forward to ensure that the available support for ESA claimants is sufficient to ensure that the full roll-out is available, not just for new claimants but for existing claimants and members of the support group who wish to take part, so that the hopes that have rightly been generated as a consequence of our discussions are fulfilled, and people are not left disappointed at the end of this process?

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

I do not wish to speak at length even though it has been an important debate. Thanks to the analysis of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, we have come a little closer to matters of concern regarding the funding that has been put in place for the roll-out of the pathways to work programme under the Bill. If his figures are correct, there has been a drop in funding from £571 a head to a maximum—assuming that all the money is allocated to pathways to work—of £327 a head. In comparison with the pilot programmes, that is a 43 per cent. reduction in funding. How does the Under-Secretary square that with the response of the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in our last sitting when I asked whether there would be enough funding? He said:

“The funding model will be the same”

and went on to say that

“we are absolutely satisfied that the necessary investment will be in place through the £360 million that we have set aside.”

If that is so, he has a duty to explain to the Committee why he thinks that it will be enough if it represents a minimum drop of 43 per cent. in the investment per head on the pathways roll-out.

The Under-Secretary might also clarify why, on Tuesday, in refusing to come to this 43 per cent. figure, the Minister also said:

“We are not going to set a target per head. It will take asmuch as it takes to support someone to get closer to thelabour market”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,24 October 2006; c. 195-99.]

Either he does have a limit on the amount of money that can be spent on this—the £360 million that would equate to a minimum 43 per cent. drop—or he does not. Ministers owe it not just to the Committee, but to all the people who will be on the programme, to explain why the Government are confident that a minimum43 per cent. reduction per head in funding will be enough to fund an adequate roll-out of the pathways programme.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will address my particular concerns about the people in the support group, because they have more severe disabilities and  will therefore require the most help to move closer to the labour market. I am concerned that that level of reduction in funding will make it difficult to give the necessary additional support to those people, as it will be much more expensive and intensive than that for people with less severe disabilities.

I do not want to rake over the arguments about the failings of incapacity benefit, because we all agree that that system does not work—that is why the Bill was introduced—but I want to put my concerns to the Under-Secretary directly. There is concern on both sides of the House that the incapacity benefit system parks people who have an incapacity and effectively says, “We are paying you a little bit extra, but that is it.” The whole purpose of the new programme is to avoid that problem, and the Conservatives want to ensure that that mistake is not repeated with people in the support group. We want to make sure that all the options envisaged by the pathways to work programme are as available to people in that group as to those with less severe disabilities who are closer to the labour market.

I also agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey about the importance of training, particularly cognitive behaviour therapy, and measures to help to build up people’s confidence if, for example, they have sustained a brain injury after a car crash. The work-focused health-related assessment will be an important part of that. However, it is difficult to understand how the sophisticated training and medical understanding necessary to help people with those issues will work in such an austere funding environment. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give the Committee significant reassurance about that.

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

To a certain extent, we are revisiting our debate on clause 9, but I shall deal with some specific issues and then refer, in particular, to funding. I reassure the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that there has been significant support for older people—those who are over 50—through the new deal for disabled people as one of the options in pathways. Indeed, he might be interested to know that, during the past year, 200,000 more older people have now gone into work.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to rights and responsibilities. Will the Committee reflect on why we are here discussing the Bill? I shall not rake over the matter of incapacity benefit, but it is an example of when the Government expected individuals to take on all the rights and responsibilities themselves. In its generic sense, government abandoned people and their responsibilities to 2. 7 million people, a figure that was trebled under the previous Administration. It was a case when the Government decided to stand back and more or less let people stand where they hung. What underpins the Bill is the fact that we are rebalancing those rights and responsibilities. Yes, individuals must do something for something, but the Government also have a special responsibility to those who need additional support at particular times in their lives.

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

Does the Under-Secretary agree that that responsibility applies equally to the most severely disabled members of the support group, as it does to the less severely disabled members of the work-related activity group?

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

I wish to make it clear to the Committee that, when I talk about disabled people, I am not talking about one category of disabled people. When I refer to those who are in receipt of employment and support allowance, I am not talking about only one category. Of course, I mean people who are in receipt of the support element. I have spent my life working with disabled people and those who have learning difficulties, and I do not think that it is always necessary to put a lever in the discussions as the hon. Gentleman is doing. Of course, I mean all disabled people including those in receipt of support. I hope that he now takes it for granted that, when I am referring to the spectrum of people on employment and support allowance, I am talking about those who are furthest from the labour market and those who are most severely disabled.

Mr. Huntrose—

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

I will let the hon. Gentleman in, but to be frank with him he is trying my patience on this matter.

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

I will press the Under-Secretary. I accept her reassurance that she is talking about all disabled people, but does she therefore accept that it can often be a lot more expensive and resource-intensive to help those furthest from the labour market to have the same opportunities as those nearer the labour market?

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

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to come some way towards meeting me on that point. I remind the Committee that, when we introduced pathways to work, his party voted against every single penny of investment that we wanted to put in to support those who are most severely disabled as well as those who are closer to the labour market. I am sorry that I have had to inject a little bit of edge into the discussion, but it is about time that we started to realise that we are all on the same track on this matter. The hon. Gentleman continues diversifying and putting disabled people into inappropriate categories. I appreciate that there are specific issues relating to the support group.

Mr. Huntrose—

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

I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene any more. I hope that he will now accept than when my colleague the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform and I talk about disabled people, we are encompassing all disabled people. That is the philosophy underpinning the Bill.

Perhaps I can now move on to other matters raised by hon. Members, specifically on financing. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has done his calculations, looked at the parliamentary questions and so on, and come up with a figure. I can do nothing other than reiterate what my hon. Friend said in earlier discussions. We think that £360 million is the correct amount with which to roll out the pathways projects.

Opposition Members seem to get tied down in the unit cost. We are not into unit cost. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) smirks, so I shall explain why we are not into unit cost. As I said in an earlier debate, I operated employment programmes under a unit cost, which could be £13 a head, for example. The difficulty with the unit cost approach is that it does not allow the resources to be directed to those individuals who need more support and assistance, because there is a limit.

Mr. Huntrose—

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

Let me finish. Within a contract, some individuals do not, perhaps, need quite as much investment as others who happen to be on the pathways project. A unit cost limit is an artificial barrier to extra support for individuals.

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

The Under-Secretary talks about my making an artificial division between groups of disabled people, but I am not doing that; the Bill does it. Many disability organisations are concerned that, in reality, there is a wide spectrum of disabilities and it is hard to make such a division. We have accepted that division in the Bill. No one is saying—I think that I am also speaking for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey—that the cost per head should be identical or that there should be equal costs for every person in the programme. An average cost per head, taken for the programme as a whole, would appear to be a huge reduction of 43 per cent in the roll-out of pathways to work. The Under-Secretary owes it to the Committee to explain why she thinks that it will be possible, with that level of reduction, to get the same good results on the roll-out of the pathways to work programme as in the pilots.

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

I re-emphasise the reassurances given by my colleague the Minister of State in earlier discussions—we have moved from a conversation to a discussion and perhaps even to a debate—that we are confident that our funding model will deliver our pathways programme. We can argy-bargy about the funding models in Committee till kingdom come and perhaps not get to the basis of an agreement. To a certain extent, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it is about trusting our funding model and figures. We are sure that we can roll out pathways on the funding model that we have presented to the Committee.

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

In an effort to be emollient, I shall take a slightly different tack, and I anticipate that the answer to my question will be positive. Will the Under-Secretary assure the Committee that nothing will be built into the remuneration or general management appraisal of Jobcentre Plus staff or contractors in respect of ESA that would suggest that there was simply a target model? That might give rise to a perverse incentive through which people got more by processing volume rather than applying themselves to the particular cases of the individuals concerned.

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

I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman; I had a slightly more robust conversation with his Front-Bench colleagues. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I am happy to clarify. There will be no staff incentives in respect of the throughput of people on the pathways to work project. I hope that that reassures him. If the Committee felt that staff were on some sort of bonus, that might make life slightly more complicated and move against the underlying philosophy of the Bill.

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

Perhaps the approach of Opposition Members is a function of their never having been in government or having forgotten what that is like. Do we not learn a great deal from piloting, which this Government have often carried out? We have already taken account of all the set-up costs, so they do not have to be repeated, and we have carried out the pilots, which have been successful, so we now know how best to target resources. We do not have to spend money again on the things that the pilots taught us worked less well.

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

With her significant previous experience on the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend understands such issues. I do not want to exhaust the Committee—

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con) rose—

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

Okay, she says wearily.

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

The Under-Secretary is weary; she is also more touchy than normal. However, I am grateful that she has eventually given way. [Interruption.] There is a bit of chuntering from a sedentary position, but I want to put my point to the Under-Secretary. There is a lot of confusion in this debate about the funding model. To clear that up, will she undertake to publish details of her funding model and the methodology and assumptions that underpin it, so that we can have an open debate about it?

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

Sometimes we in Committees forget that we are only part of a greater whole. Funding models will, of course, be investigated and tested through the normal parliamentary procedure—a Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and so on. The hon. Gentleman does not need my reassurance that that will happen; it is what actually happens. The issue is not just about our talking here about a funding model, but all the other areas of parliamentary scrutiny that will examine the funding models.

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

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

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

I am just about to answer the question about whether we are investing just now. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wanted to know?

Danny Alexanderindicated assent.

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

There you are, Mr. Amess—I can read minds as well. I should say in passing to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) that I am not touchy this morning; this is me on my normal, robust form. He had the pleasure of Lord Forsyth heading the Conservatives’ tax policy committee and if I were not robust, I would not have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity that he did not think he wanted at the time.

I turn to the investment in IT, about which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked. Of course, we have the ability pre-spend under section 28, particularly on IT. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures. We are issuing contracts and it would be difficult to put some of that information into the public domain. As I have already said, however, we operate under parliamentary scrutiny, which will allow for scrutiny of the figures at an appropriate time.

With the greatest respect, I do not think that any of us has focused on clause 10 in quite the way that we should have done. Nevertheless, I hope that the clause can now stand part of the Bill.

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

I will be brief because we have had a good debate. I had not intended my opening remarks to inject the note of party political rancour that has entered into the debate between the other two parties.

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

For the hon. Gentleman’s information, I may have inadvertently said section 28. I meant section 82. Perhaps I was thinking of former battles.

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

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s clarification, although I was a little disappointed by her response. I accept that members of the Committee have entered into the discussion about the funding of pathways and its delivery with good intentions, but I am not at all satisfied with the answers that I received about the specifics of the funding. We might hear more from the Chancellor in his pre-Budget report about levels of investment that may or may not be put into such matters, and I hope that the hon. Lady will take that up with her friends and colleagues in the Treasury.

Even if we accept that we trust the Government—I am not saying that I do, but they are asking us to take it on trust that the necessary amount will be spent—it worries me that no clause in the Bill makes clear the reciprocity of responsibility that the Under-Secretary rightly described and the commitment that I share that would not allow a future Government, perhaps of another party or of a political hue that chose to make substantial tax reductions and seek cost savings, to reduce the funding for pathways to work and to increase their use of the conditionality regime. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening and that would allow for the fact that, in future years, the support package might be thoroughly inadequate enough to undermine the use of the conditionality regime. I know that that is perhaps not the intention of Ministers here, but the Bill could be used by future Governments, too, and that remains my concern.