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

As the Committee will know, clause 65 gives effect to schedule 8, which repeals existing legislation relating to key parts of the Bill, not least part 1. It might seem like some time ago that we discussed it, but the matters that I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention relate back to changes consequential on part 1. The items repealed under schedule 8 include parts of existing legislation relating to rates, structures and the entitlement tests for incapacity benefit and income support. I hope, therefore, to draw a few things to the Committee’s attention—I think that the Under-Secretary will be responding to these points, for which I am very  grateful, although, of course, I do not wish to undervalue the Minister of State’s extensive contributions to proceedings.

Given that the clause gives effect to schedule 8, which repeals much of the existing structure, we have an opportunity to gain a little more clarification on some important points to claimants about the existing structure that will be removed and the new structure that will replace it. I hope that I have your leave, Mr. Hood, to proceed with this point.

Little information is given in the Bill about the employment and support allowance structure, except for the broad shape of the components. As we know the employment and support allowance is expected to be above the current incapacity benefit long-term rate. It is currently £78.50 per week. The support component is expected to be higher than the work-related components. That raises some questions, and if we are talking about repealing clear and detailed legislation, we need a similarly clear and detailed understanding of the consequences.

What is the relationship between the means-tested and the contributory strands? What underpins the difference in the payments rates of the support component and the work-related activity components? How many existing claimants will receive more in incapacity benefit and income support than their employment and support allowance entitlement? We have debated some of these questions before, but we have not yet had sufficiently clear answers. The Under-Secretary may not necessarily be expecting to go back over some of this ground. On that basis and on the grounds of fairness and reasonableness, which Labour Members know are two of my favourite characteristics—

John Robertson (PPS (Dr Kim Howells, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Glasgow North West, Labour)

And the weather.

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

I am grateful for that comment. These are questions that may need to be probed further in another place. If the Under-Secretary cannot give a little more detail on what is proposed at the moment, I hope that she will ensure that Lord Hunt can do so when the time comes.

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

I am delighted that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has now worked out the strategy for his party in another place. I admire his ingenuity, even given his own admission that we have had an extensive discussion of the issues that he has highlighted and that were more than adequately—indeed, brilliantly—answered by the Minister of State.