Clause 12
Welfare Reform Bill
1:30 pm
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
I shall speak briefly, Mr. Amess. If I may say so, this probing amendment is well conceived. We need to know something about this issue. The Government are undertaking a fairly major step, although in pathways pilots they have done a little to require work-related activity over and above the relatively easily described and scoped work-related interview. A whole variety of circumstances in which that might not be possible might apply.
I suppose that unless we assume a grave deficiency in the local or national labour market—we shall not go into that wider issue this afternoon—it would normally be self-evident that somebody with limited capacity for work who is not in work although there is work to be had would need to move towards some work-related activity. That is not objectionable in principle.
In our debate on the last clause, the Minister flagged up the fact that we are trying to emphasise that there is an approach of mutuality and partnership so that officialdom works with the claimant to try to get them through. All the surveys of disabled people show that that is what many of them would like to do if they had the support. We need to scope what they can do and what will get them closer to working. At this stage, at any rate, nobody wishes to prescribe that there should be a penalty for not working. I certainly do not, but there is clearly a need to prepare for work.
The explanatory notes, which we sometimes criticise, are quite helpful on this issue. They discuss work tasters, programmes to manage health and work, job search assistance and programmes to assist in stabilising a person’s life. The latter programme may be a little less clear than the others but it is fairly clear, even from those short words, roughly what the Minister is driving at. No doubt he will wish to respond to the amendment.
In conclusion, all I need say in support of the amendment is that we clearly need to know more about what is intended and to have in mind at all times the possible constraints on the ability to carry that out—in particular when those constraints are not in the claimant’s control. Take work tasters, which are analogous to people going on work experience from their school or college. There may be health and safety considerations.
Arguably, those considerations could be more intense if a person has been out of the labour market because of some illness or disability and then wishes to go and try something out, rather than take part in a settled arrangement in which they are in a contract of employment, having succeeded in getting work. Clearly, it is important that the matter of constraints is addressed, and that there is such a reasonable opportunity.
The Minister may wish to say something about the fact that, theoretically, it may be necessary to provide access to work arrangements in order for a work-related activity to take place, let alone the work itself.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has reinforced my inquiry on that matter. The whole import of the clause is that people will not have an easy transition from being limited in capacity to work and out of work to getting into work. We all want to bridge that gap, but we must do so in a reasonable way. Above all, we do not have to attach blame to the individual who, for reasons that may be beyond their control, is unable to make the transition. If there is a constraint, it needs to be met by a waiver or appropriate action. Therefore, we ask the Minister to explain what he has in mind and urge him not to be too literal-minded. We want some indication of how such a delicate gap is to be bridged, particularly at the point where there is an implied threat of sanctions, which is an innovation.