Clause 16
Welfare Reform Bill
4:30 pm
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendmentNo. 198, in clause 16, page 14, line 21, leave out paragraph (a).
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s intentions for the rules on notional income and notional capital and the way in which those will be applied in the context of the employment and support allowance. As the Committee will no doubt know, the notional earnings rule—as it applies to income support—can be applied in certain cases in which people are not undertaking paid employment, such as voluntary or other work, and Jobcentre Plus does not think that it is reasonable to provide their services free of charge. That means that someone is treated as if they were in a paid job. For example, if someone works 10 hours a week on a voluntary basis, that can be regarded as 10 hours a week of actual employment.
The notional earnings rule means that the notional amount of money that someone is deemed to be earning can be taken into account and removed from income support on a pound-for-pound basis. In other words, people’s benefit can be reduced by an amount, even though they have not received it, because theyare doing an activity in the community, for example, which Jobcentre Plus deems, for whatever reason, appropriate. Likewise, earnings disregard rules—which are pretty ungenerous anyway—would also apply. In some cases, expenses when undertaking voluntary work can be counted as earnings. Therefore, someone who has had their travel expenses reimbursed could have those treated as earnings and therefore they would count towards the £20 earnings disregard limit.
Will the Under-Secretary clarify the Government’s intentions for provisions on the employment and support allowance? The notional earnings rule was invented to tackle the situation in which people may have forgone earnings to maximise their benefit situation. However, in the context of a Bill that deals with work-related activity and people undertaking activities that can help them get back into the labour market—this point has been made on both sides of the Committee during the course of our proceedings—activities such as voluntary work can and should be regarded as work-related activity as part of pathways to work or whatever.
How will those rules apply to employment and support allowance? If necessary, will the Under-Secretary consider a form of limited amendment to the notional earnings rules specifically in relation to the employment and support allowance so that people engaged in voluntary work, as part of the process of getting closer to the labour market, can do so without being penalised. I look forward to her response.
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
I welcome you, Mr. Hood, back to the Committee. We are anxious to make progress and therefore I will not detain the Committee long.
Dealing with the generality of the clause—this is not a clause stand part debate, and I hope not to make a speech on that—we could interpret the amendment as being about the wording and the construction of the clause, as it would leave out one of its crucial subsections. We should probably impart one further dramatis persona to the Committee in the shape of Kafka, because the idea of prescribing something as capital or income that a person does not possess, or it is a disregard—income to be treated as capital, capital to be treated as income—is overtly in that vein. I would be more than delighted if I could make that particular case to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but I am more concerned that it might catch the habit and start interpreting my tax schedules along those lines.
The explanatory notes on the clause are long and particularly helpful. I shall make one other obiter remark. The Bill is constructed rather like Beethoven’s symphonies: the odd-numbered clauses are weighty and important, whereas the even-numbered ones are lighter but nevertheless perfectly delightful.
We have good meaty explanatory notes, so I simply ask the Under-Secretary to assure the Committee—I think it is clear from the explanatory notes that everything in the provision is precedented and will be tied down in regulations—that in connection with the treatment of capital and income, the provision will not be some kind of arbitrary game, as I jocularly suggested, and that it will be precedented in relationto other benefits and tied down to particular circumstances, such as the wilful evacuation of capital assets, with which we are fairly familiar in respect of other benefits.
Having worked on the pension credit legislation some years ago, I know that most people do not think that the tariff for income is particularly generous to the claimant. I shall not reopen that issue, but perhaps the Under-Secretary could give the important assurance that she would anticipate that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the same approach would be taken in relation to all benefits. This is like jobseeker’s allowance, but the capital tariff, or the notional income, is treated as if it were more or less the same as pension credit. It would be unfortunate for the Department’s business if those got out of line.
I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said about voluntary work. It is an important pathway into employment, and it is important to encourage rather than discourage it. The level of notional income should be set with that in mind.
I have recently been in correspondence with the Princess Royal Trust for Carers about some exchanges that I had on other matters to do with the position of disabled people who have family responsibilities. I believe that currently nobody is treated as notionally in work because, notwithstanding their condition, they have some family caring responsibilities, although the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure the Committee on that. The issue has not been much mentioned.
I invite the Under-Secretary now or in response to a later clause, possibly in relation to private schemes, to reflect on the importance of disability employment advisers and personal advisers reviewing the situation not just of the person before them as the claimant but of their family. That will obviously influence how they are available for work, the kinds of things that theycan do, and the constraints that they are under. Understandably, and without prejudice to our earlier exchanges about work load, case load, box-ticking and the rest of it, people will often tend to consider the claimant’s situation without necessarily looking at the family in the round.
Several hon. Members properly raised the issue of child poverty. We will not unlock that problem unless the solutions for those now claiming the allowance are eased or accommodated as far as possible to meet their family circumstances. Having said that, the amendment is tabled in a certain spirit, and we are anxious to make progress. There is no essential difficulty with the clause, so I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) to discuss disregards in relation to a later amendment.
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
I am delighted to see you back in your Chair, Mr. Hood. I have missed you.
I can allay the fears of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who is in danger of confusing two issues. One is voluntary work, and we have said more than once that volunteering is a stepping stone along the pathway to work. There is a major difference if someone is working in a commercial environment and appears not to be declaring any income from that job. As a Member of Parliament I have known circumstances in which someone has worked full-time in a business and has been astonished to find out that the DWP thought they might be earning some money when they were also claiming benefit. That scenario will be covered rather than the type that the hon. Gentleman painted.
On capital, perhaps I can highlight another scenario. To circumvent the capital limits, a person might put all their capital in the name of a trusted friend—it would need to be a pretty trusted friend—or a family member. They might effectively dispose of capital so as to come under the threshold. The clause will deal with such scenarios.
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
Is it fair to summarise the Under-Secretary’s comments as being that the clause is primarily dedicated to dealing with abuse and deliberate attempts to frustrate the system, rather than dealing with people with entirely legitimate activities who might get caught in the fire? Will she at least assure us that that is what she is trying to do in the regulations?
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the nub of the matter. We have increased the capital limits—we doubled them in April 2000—and there is now a limit of between £6,000 and £16,000. For older people in residential care the limit is around £10,000. The clause will essentially allow us to deal with those who seek to circumvent the rules. They are the same rules as currently exist for income support, and they should be translated into the new legislation.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
It was the specific assurance on voluntary work that I wanted. Having received it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Earnings disregard level—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations that the level of earnings disregard for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance shall be set at a level that he shall by determine.
(2) In determining the level of earnings disregard under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall have regard to labour market conditions including the National Minimum Wageas defined under section 1 of the National Minimum WageAct 1998 (c. 39).’.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hood. We are trying to make progress. We know that that must be the case because we have not heard the weather forecast for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I regret that slightly, because rather like “The Archers”, I am beginning to follow that forecast and I am a bit curious as to how it might be this afternoon.
I thank you for selecting new clause 13 with clause stand part, Mr. Hood, because it is only loosely related to the clause. It deals with the income of claimants, and there is not really anywhere else in the Bill that is suitable to discuss that. Before speaking to the new clause, I have a question for the Under-Secretary. Clause 16(3)(b) gives the Secretary of State the power to disregard the capital or income that a person possesses. Will she confirm that she might be prepared to do that if a disabled person is asked to take part in a consultation on Government policy and is given travel expenses? She and I both spoke at the annual general meeting of the British Council of Disabled People recently. One of that organisation’s great concerns is that it is often asked to participate in consultations about policy, but often gets little or no remuneration for it. It is particularly concerned that if its members receive any remuneration—even travel expenses—it could count as income towards their earnings disregard. Will that be one occasion on which the Secretary of State could show a bit of latitude?
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this may apply to certain people who may receive expenses or honoraria, or may decline to claim them in relation to anything that they are required to do in connection with user consultations under social care legislation? Parliament encourages consultation with service users, so it would be unfortunate if it appeared to subvert the position of users through the earnings disregard.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. A specific example of what he is talking about would be the pilots concerning individual budgets, where it is vital to get service users’ views if programmes are to be rolled out effectively and successfully. I am sure that the Government do not intend to put off disabled people from participating in such consultations, so it would be great if the Minister could reassure the Committee.
Moving on to new clause 13, I understand that the real intention of the Bill is to tackle the barriers to work faced by many people with a limited capability for work. It is encouraging that the Bill rolls out various proactive support measures that could help people make the difficult transition and engage in the world of work. However, I tabled the new clause because I am concerned that the Bill fails to deal with a structural problem that is a huge barrier to people re-engaging or engaging for the first time—[Interruption.]
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
Order. May I ask the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) to resume her seat?
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
I am grateful, Mr. Hood. I am hoping that the hon. Lady will intervene later, because she made some interesting interventions earlier when we were talking about Tunbridge Wells Tim and Derbyshire Dave.
I am concerned that built-in disincentives, including the strict rules about how much money can count towards the earnings disregard, strongly discourage people from engaging in the world of work. If we remove the structural problems with the earnings disregard, we will have far greater success with the proactive support measures advanced under the Bill as part of the pathways roll-out.
On the DWP website, which I viewed last night, under a heading of “Working while claiming benefit”—
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
You should get out more.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
We return to my activities last night, which included looking at the DWP website, which I am proud to have done because it was important for our debate today.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Hood. As a new Member of Parliament, I shall take very seriously your advice about not getting things transcribed things on to the record that are best left untranscribed.
The DWP website says:
“You cannot usually work while you are getting Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, National Insurance Credits or Income Support because of illness or disability. You may be able to do the following types of work but you should check with your local Jobcentre, Jobcentre Plus or social security office before you start.”
Then it talks about those types of work. Neither the Bill nor the explanatory notes make it clear howthe dual structure works in this regard. I hope that the Minister is able to enlighten the Committee about ESA and the dual structure that exists at the moment, where people on income support only have a £20 earnings disregard, but those on incapacity benefit have the permitted work higher limit of £81 a week. The Bill does not make it clear whether the Government intend that dual structure to continue.
I am sure that it will not have escaped the Minister’s notice that, curiously, there is a much lower earnings disregard for those likely to be the poorest people involved in the programme. Will the Minister clarify whether she thinks that it is appropriate to have two levels of earnings disregard given that part of the benefit of introducing new welfare reform legislation is a move towards simplicity and transparency, where possible? Having complicated rules dependent on the individual claimant for earnings disregard would not appear to do that.
The earnings disregard for people on income support has not changed since its introduction, but the labour market conditions have. Disability Alliance told the Select Committee on Work and Pensions that until October 2005 those on income support could work for up to four hours on the minimum wage, but since then increases to the minimum wage to £5.35 mean that they can work for just over three hours. It asked whether it was not incongruous that a person can work for a certain number of hours one year, but not the next. I put it to the Committee that that is against the spirit of the Bill—a spirit that the Opposition welcome.
The Select Committee recommended that the earnings disregard be set at four hours at minimum wage and uprated annually. New clause 13 is actually weaker than that and would allow, but not compel, the Secretary of State to uprate the earnings disregard in line with the minimum wage and require him or her to take account of other labour market conditions, not just the minimum wage—other conditions need to be factored in.
I put it to the Minister that it is not necessarily the case that increasing the disregard would amount to an increase in public spending. If people did not think that it was going to affect their benefits package, they would feel more encouraged to engage in the world of work—in many cases they are not because of the earnings disregard—and to take those first few halting steps. In that case, in the long run, the Bill would be more successful in getting people off employment and support allowance and back into work.
The Minister gave an interesting example from her constituency surgery when she met someone working for a commercial organisation who did not understand why that might be incompatible with claiming benefits. The concern is that if the earnings disregard rules are too generous, everybody doing a part-time job might think, “I will sign on and claim benefits at the same time as earning a wage from my part-time job”.
Actually, the Government could be a lot bolder with earnings disregard because of the structure of the pathways to work programme. In reality, people have to go through a process before being considered for ESA and talk to a personal adviser who has much more detailed knowledge of their personal situation than has been the case before. In that situation, with that knowledge of individual claimants, it ought to be possible to be a lot more generous with the earnings disregard.
I thank you again, Mr. Hood, for allowing this new clause to be debated. To wrap up, I remind the Minister that Capability Scotland said that 50 per cent. of working-age disabled people in Scotland did not want to engage in the world of work because they were worried that it would threaten their benefits package. Let me remind her also that the Secretary of State himself has talked frequently, in the House and the media, about the relationship between poverty and worklessness. Is it possible that by accepting the new clause we could turn the spotlight on the barriers created by permitted hours and the earnings disregard? Will she consider supporting the new clause as a step in the right direction to dealing with that issue?
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
I would like to add a few remarks to those of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey on earnings disregard. It is an important issue to raise at this stage. I shall not comment on his nocturnal activities, but I do think that his amendment has drawn attention to an important issue. The situation is worse than he described because he dwelt only on the permitted working rules in relation to incapacity benefit and earnings disregard in relation to income support. But of course there are also earnings disregard that apply to housing benefit. In relation to incentives to work and the agenda to make work pay, is it worth someone going to work, as the Bill tries to encourage people to do? Do people feel that when they go to work, they receive a reasonable amount of the money that they earn?
The question of earnings disregards is important. The earnings disregard is set at £20, which means that someone can carry out less than four hours work on the minimum wage before they start losing benefits. Depending on which benefit they receive, they may lose it quickly, too. Recent figures suggest that as a result of those tapers, people can then lose their benefit at the rate of 70p to 90p in the pound of new wages earned. If one were to suggest such rates for people at the top of the income scale, there would be squeals of pain from the City and elsewhere; however, the Government consider it acceptable for people at the lowest end of the scale.
The earnings disregard will allow a proportion of income to be earned before the clawback starts. It will be critical to people who want to try out not just work-related activity, but a few hours of work a week, or to people who have a fluctuating condition and are able to work less than 16 hours a week. Tax credits that help people make their work more worthwhile do not kick in until 16 hours have been worked.
It would be useful if the Under-Secretary were to address not only the earnings disregard for employment and support allowance, but the interaction between the different earnings disregards for different benefits. After all, someone in receipt of ESA is likely—although not certain—to be in receipt of housing and other benefits, as the hon. Member for South-West Surrey said. All earnings disregards will have a substantial impact on the financial incentives for people to return to work.
I would be grateful if the Minister were to explain both the Government’s thinking on earnings disregards, and her discussions and thoughts on the idea of higher earnings disregards to help get people off benefits and back to work and to help a range of other claimants who face substantial disincentives. That includes high marginal withdrawal rates of benefits. A higher earnings disregard could help someone move higher up the ladder towards work, before that person’s benefits started being taken away. What we do about marginal reduction rates of benefits is a matter for a separate debate, although it is important. We could start by establishing earnings disregards at a sufficiently generous rate that allowed people to try out work, and for work to be financially worthwhile.
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
Mr. Hood, may I ask whether I will be replying to the debate on clause stand part as well as new clause 13?
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Hood.
I am delighted to have had this discussion, because as my hon. Friend the Minister said during the debate on clause 13, it is an important issue. He also said that
“regulations could, for example, state that it is paymentsafter deduction of expenses that are prescribed for the purposes of deduction.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,17 October 2006; c. 85.]
He was interested in the points made during that debate.
I shall clarify some other points. Under incapacity benefit, as the hon. Member for South-West Surrey said, permitted-work rules allow a person to continue receiving benefit while they work. We recognise the importance of work. There are two limits: the lower permitted one of £20 a week and the higher limit of £86 a week, which is available in limited circumstances and allows someone to start to make the move from part-time work into full-time work in a supported environment. We have tried to look at the spectrum of support that is needed.
There is no evidence to show that a blanket disregard on its own is effective in moving someone from worklessness or incapacity benefit into work. It is a matter not just of what income should be disregarded, but of the other mechanisms that need to be put in place. I have had discussions with Capability Scotland and other organisations on the confidence-building measures that we need to put in place, because the hon. Gentleman is right: if someone is sitting on benefit for a long time there is a security in knowing what income they have and in knowing that they have an entitlement to certain things. If a person is asked to leap into something that is perhaps beyond their recent experience we need to consider how to ensure that that person has the confidence to make the leap.
As we all agree in this Committee, the best way out of poverty is into work. That is why we have extended the linking rules so that someone who holds an entitlement to a benefit has the security of knowing that, subject to their meeting the criteria, they can move back on to that entitlement if they try work and it does not work out. It allows confidence to be built up with the security of knowing that they have not completely cut the cord between themselves and the benefit system. I think that that addresses some of the issues that were raised.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants us to give a commitment to raising the rate, but I say, gently, in the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, that we cannot just take the income disregard in isolation, as a series of measures needs to be put in place.
On the point raised by hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, decisions on how housing benefit, council tax benefit and so on will interact with contributory employment and support allowance cannot, of course, be made until the structure of the ESA has been decided. Some of those issues will be considered further down the line and, as we have already given a commitment, will be subject to other debates.
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
I understand the legal reasons for the Minister’s point. She is right to say that a range of other factors have to be taken into account; earnings disregards cannot be treated in isolation. However, someone in receipt of housing and council tax benefit who starts earning more than £20 a week starts to lose benefits at the rate of 85p for every additional pound earned, which is a substantial disincentive to work. Will the Minister take that factor into account in thinking through how ESA should relate to the housing benefit issue?
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have gone as far as I am prepared to go in today’s discussions.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)
Is the Minister saying that she is not prepared to link any disregards to the minimum wage, which was set by her Government as a benchmark for minimum earnings and for many other important things that underpin our society? Can the Minister make that absolutely clear to the Committee?
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
It is lovely to hear the minimum wage being embraced in such a wholehearted way by a party that made us sit through a long night when we used to have all-night sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) remembers it well.
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
I know, Mr. Hood, but it was worth a try.
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
The Conservative party has moved on. Will the hon. Lady?
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
The proof of the pudding may be in the eating, but I hope that we do not have to eat it for a long time. I go to my earlier point. It is not specifically about the level of the disregard, although as my hon. Friend said earlier, it is an important issue and one that we will have to consider. That is probably as far as the hon. Gentleman will tempt me today.
The Government regularly review the level of disregards, taking into account a large range of relevant factors, one of which is the prevailing labour market conditions. We need to ensure that we do not undermine the incentives for people who move off benefits into full-time work if that is appropriate. It is about getting the balance right and not creating a situation where it is more acceptable for people to be on benefit plus a high disregard, which either the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey or the hon. Member for South-West Surrey highlighted. We are currently working on how we can achieve that balance. We will be setting out the rules on permitted work and earnings disregards in the regulations that follow the Bill and those regulations will be subject to debate and discussion in the House.
I think that I have dealt with the specific points raised in the debate. The clause will allow us to prescribe when a customer can be treated as having income or capital which he no longer has, for example, where it has been disposed of deliberately; disregard certain capital and income, for example, the value of a customer’s house or personal possessions; and provide a capital limit so that those with capital over this amount are not entitled to benefit. Clause 16 is a crucial part of the Bill as it enables the value of income and capital to be treated in a way that is similar to existing benefits.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
I was informed by the Clerks that I needed to let you know, Mr. Hood, before the end of the debate on the clause whether we wanted to press new clause 13 to a vote. May I, in that spirit, briefly respond to the Minister and explain what our thinking on that is?
The Minister mentioned the minimum wage. This is central to this issue. I freely admit that I had concerns when the minimum wage was introduced that it would price some people out of the market. I was wrong. That has been demonstrated by what has happened subsequently. May I praise the Minister? The minimum wage is a brilliant mechanism to work in partnership with the pathways to work programme. Without a minimum wage there is obviously a real concern that employers might exploit the fact that the benefit system exists to pay lower and lower wages and hope that the state would fill the gap. With the minimum wage that is no longer possible.
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
I felt I should declare an interest as some Members may recall that I had a certain degree of responsibility both for keeping them up all night on the minimum wage and, conversely, in receiving their attentions in Committee over two whole nights of debate. Whatever else one may say about that process, it was right to bring out the issues. I simply wonder whether my hon. Friend would reflect on the fact that the more the Government succeed in raising the acceptable level of the minimum wage, ipso facto, if they do not alter the provision for disregards, the proportion of time that is available within the rubric will be reduced.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point, and he does so in the Daventry style of debate, which we have got used to in the Committee. The problem, as he rightly says, is that people will be able to work for less and less under the earnings disregard as the minimum wage increases.
The Under-Secretary said that there is no evidence that a blanket earnings disregard on its own is effective and she is absolutely right that it must be part of a whole package of measures, including confidence-building measures. However, it is still a significant hurdle, and the evidence from Capability Scotland is just one indication of that. To take other, anecdotal evidence, disabled people who are out of work will say that their biggest fear is doing anything that could compromise their benefits package, which is important to them and will be part of their income for their whole lives.
The Under-Secretary also mentioned the linking rules, which are important, but they are not widely understood. If they are to play an important part in removing the barrier to returning to work, the Government must make much more progress in publicising how they work.
Finally, I ask the Under-Secretary to correct the Department’s website. She said that it was possible to earn £86 on the higher rate of incapacity benefit, but the website says £81. I am sure that she can ensure that her website is updated.
Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)
It is not my website.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
Well, her Department’s website.
Jimmy Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East, Labour)
Order. We said earlier that we wanted to make progress, but we will make a lot more if hon. Members listen to those who are on their feet and remain in order.
Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)
I am grateful to you, Mr. Hood, but I do not need to try your patience any longer. On the basis of our discussion, Opposition Members will want to press new clause 13 to a vote at whatever point in our proceedings you consider appropriate.