Clause 11
Welfare Reform Bill
1:30 pm
Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
It must be true, but the fact that the hon. Member for Daventry said it gives it additional credibility in Committee.
A variety of scenarios—we cannot rehearse them all now—could lead to the deferral of a work-focused interview. For instance, someone might be close to the labour market already, or be recovering from an ailment or injury, such as a broken leg or an accident at work, or be taking up work. Those are the types of circumstances that could reasonably lead to a deferral.
The hon. Member for Daventry asked reasonably about the timing of future work-focused interviews. Our intention is that the first work-focused interview should continue to take place in week eight of the 13-week assessment phase and provide advice about the labour market and the gateway to any benefits that an individual is entitled to, either out of work or as they get close to and eventually into the labour market. That would be an opportunity to offer wider benefit advice in a way that nearly always happens really effectively in pathways at the moment—although, as is always the case, we can do more there as well.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) asked about sanctions—I think that I responded to the question about what taking part means.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for BurySt. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) about not complicating the system with too many intricacies and thus creating what he noticed in other clauses—complexity and confusion—and which we discussed how to avoid. We tested analysis and thinking and concluded that the50 per cent. reduction over that four-week period will be about the right level of sanction necessary to encourage people to participate again in the conditionality. If the conditionality is not adhered to there is of course the second element of benefit reduction. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the total reduction can be only for the total amount of work-related activity. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), said, we would never impose sanctions during the 13-week assessment phase because that would take it below the current jobseeker’s allowance—we would not seek sanctions beyond that level.
Without testing every scenario, which we will do in discussions on regulations, reinstatement would take place if the person were to comply with the conditionality—in other words, attended work-focused interviews—or if on appeal they showed good cause and that the sanction was inappropriate. Of course, we have set out what would be interpreted as good cause.
I do not want to lengthen the debate, but I remind the Committee of parts of the draft regulations that have been provided on clause 11, “Work-focused interviews”. Page 26 does not contain an exhaustive list of examples of good cause, but the sanctions and safeguards provided for are on page 6. Issues about deferrals are on page 7.
I am inclined to wait for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to return to his place, because I want him to know that I could not agree with him more. [Hon. Members: “Here he is.”] As I was saying, Mr. Amess, the hon. Gentleman made a proposal on literature. I agree entirely, which is why we put in train some time ago exactly what he has suggested. I will shortly receive a response from officials in the Department for Work and Pensions on how the forms can be simplified, and the hon. Gentleman is right that we should share it with lobby groups and organisations. The Under-Secretary has offered to do likewise with carers’ organisations to find out whether they believe it to be sensitive enough. As I said earlier in our proceedings, we must also share it face to face with people with mental health illnesses. That is why I have brought together a group of people to do so. I reiterate that the intention is not to make that a matter of media focus; it will be a private conversation with people whom we have already met without any such focus. That is the way in which it should continue. We will listen to their experiences and test the redesigned forms with them. The lobbying and carers’ organisations have a crucial part to play, but we also want to road-test the forms with those who will fill them in.
I offer the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds the caveat, which I know he will accept, that of course the forms must contain a certain amount of legalese. They will be stipulated by regulations and must thereforeset out the legal rights and responsibilities. Notwithstanding that, there is unanimity that we can find a better way to simplify communication. There is a difficult balancing act to be performed, but it is important that we convey as sensitively as possible the responsibilities and sanctions that there will be if the activity requirement is not adhered to. We therefore have absolute unanimity on the point made by the hon. Gentleman.