Welfare Reform Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 October 2006.

Standing Committee A

Clause 8

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in page 7, line 6, at end add—

‘(7) A person authorised to exercise the functions in subsections (2) and (3) may be required to undergo such training in relation to claimants with particular impairments and health conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulation require.’.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr. Amess, and I am looking forward to continuing these debates in the positive spirit in which they have been conducted so far, especially, if I may say so, from the Government Benches, from whom the only party political remarks we have heard have come.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

It’s a pilot scheme for being nice.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I notice that the hon. Gentleman on the Tory Front Bench, from a sedentary position, seems also to be engaged in a pilot scheme of being nice—he is managing reasonably well so far. No doubt, however, we shall be able to get some more rancour into the debate as the week goes on.

Amendment No. 171 would allow the Secretary of State to require those carrying out assessments of claimants with particular impairments or health conditions, in relation to limited capability for work, to be trained. The amendment probes the Government’s intentions in that area. Given the range and complexity of disabilities, impairments and health conditions that might be encountered in the assessment process, as described in previous debates, it is important to ensure that assessors have the required degree of training, knowledge and understanding of the full range of those conditions or impairments.

It is interesting to note that in some cases specialist nurses are used already for assessments in relation to disability living allowance, specifically to ensure that specialist knowledge is brought to the assessment. By contrast, however, personal capability assessments so far have relied exclusively on general practitioners, but it is widely believed, particularly by disability lobby groups, that GPs’ knowledge of some conditions or impairments might not be sufficient to make a reliable assessment. The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to order such training as might be necessary to bring them up to speed.

Currently there are no statutory obligations for training for medical assessors in relation to certain disabilities, particularly in relation to mental health conditions, learning disabilities and so on. A higher level of understanding of those non-physical conditions would help to reduce the current high level of appeals and their high success rate. For example, in 2003 nearly 48 per cent. of appeals against the refusal of incapacity benefit were successful; indeed, 68 per cent. were successful when a citizens advice bureau or other adviser with expertise in the appellant’s condition attended the appeal. In many cases, the lack of knowledge of the nature of the condition or impairment at the initial PCA is cited by appellants as a reason why they think that the first decision was wrong. The amendment aims to bring more specialist knowledge to the PCA.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am very much sympathetic to the lines of his argument; they are entirely congruent with what we have heard from disability and other organisations over the years.

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that there are two practical problems with his amendment? First, in relation to multiple conditions, is it possible for any one examiner to have the sufficient range of knowledge to be able to embrace all the difficulties and their interaction? Secondly, in order to produce the full range of expertise it might be necessary to have a panel of people examining simultaneously, which could be extremely daunting for the claimant.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The hon. Gentleman makes two very good points. Of course, it might be asking a lot for the same doctor to have expertise in every single potential condition, impairment or disability. That is a valid point, and if the answer was to have a panel of people who a claimant might appeal to, that too might be intimidating. It could also reinforce some of the biggest problems with the assessment process at the moment.

With regard to disability living allowance, specialist nurses can be called upon where someone with a particular condition is presenting. Bearing in mind that in the application for employment and support allowance the applicant has to spell out their reasons, it should be possible to predict with a large degree of accuracy the cases in which some form of specialist input might be useful. That could mean either ensuring that the doctor who is carrying out the assessment has the requisite skills, knowledge or understanding or,if they do not and if no one in that particular locality has those skills and experience, making sure that another specialist doctor or a specialist nurse could be brought in.

I am not seeking to create an unnecessarily burdensome or intimidating assessment procedure. What I am seeking to probe is the extent to which the Government consider it important that specific knowledge of health conditions or disabilities is included in the assessment process to ensure that it is accurate. This is also important in relation to fluctuating conditions, particularly those, such as MS, where specialist knowledge of the condition may be useful in carrying out an assessment.

Particular representations have been made to me in relation to people with autism or autistic spectrum disorders. According to the National Autistic Society, 40 per cent of GPs do not have enough information to make informed assessments in relation to disorders on the autistic spectrum. It is worth noting that only 6 per cent of people who are autistic in some way are in employment. That is an incredibly low figure compared with 49 per cent for disabled people as a whole. This may, therefore, be an area where having a degree of specialist knowledge throughout the assessment process would really help to add value at all stages. I shall be grateful if the Minister will address that point specifically in his response.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

The training for assessors has been brought up in the past and I know that Mr. Hood said that we would not have any stand part debate on this clause, so I feel that this is a good point to raise it.

Training in general terms is a concern of many bodies that represent people with disabilities; the fear is that a general practitioner would be given a job as an assessor with absolutely no knowledge of some of the problems suffered by the people that they would be assessing.

Can my hon. Friend the Minister allay my fears on that, and maybe go into some detail on the training for assessors? Can he also clarify the point on collation of information? I mentioned that when we debated an earlier amendment. It is important that he reiterates the fact that we would pull in all information and, if all the information were not available, we could go back over it a second time to gather any missing information.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) makes good points about the fact that it may be necessary to bring in more than one expert for discussion. I would like to know what sort of liaison is carried out in relation to talking to the medical experts, whether they are, for example, experts on injuries or on mental health.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Amess, on this grey morning—not as cheerful as the other days when you have been in the Chair.

I would like to tease out from the Minister a couple of points which bear on what the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) has just said. On the question of the types of people who would be doing the assessing, the Secretary of State in evidence to the Select Committee in the Spring this year said,

“my understanding is that people agree that we should involve the skills and expertise of a wider relevant range of healthcare professionals to help us do this.”

“Wider” implies wider than is the case under the current regime. He went on to say:

“There will be a list of people, I am sure, occupational therapists and physiotherapists and others, but who actually is involved in individual assessments I think is going to have to be something we discuss with people over the next few months.”

That is fair enough; the Secretary of State says that a wider range of specialists and professionals will be involved. I think I know which group polices and executes the conditions under the current regime, but it would be extremely useful, given that the Secretary of State was generous in saying that he would consult on involving a wider range, if the Minister could give us some information on that.

That brings me to my second point. Does it trouble me? I do not know—it niggles a bit at the back ofmy mind. In evidence to the Select Committee,Dr. Boardman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who gave a lot of evidence for the excellent Select Committee report on the pathways programme, set a hare running—certainly in my mind, if a hare can be set running in a person’s mind, and I think other people were also worried—on the question whether there would be enough people to carry out the wider assessments. Obviously, there will be more varied assessments under provisions in these clauses than under the current regime; we all know that.

The idea was floated that lay people could be trained to carry out the mental health assessments, which is an interesting idea. The reason I want the Minister’s view on that point is that Dr. Boardman is very distinguished and a bit of a player in incapacity benefit reform. He said to the Select Committee that

“it is quite possible, for example, to train anybody to do a perfectly good interview with somebody with a mental health problem and come up with a reliable judgment. This is used in research all the time. When we look at the results, say, of the OPCS survey of Psychiatric Morbidity in Great Britain, a national survey, this was all done by lay interviewers using a particular form of structured interview.”

I do not know what is in the mind of Ministers but that distinguished psychiatrist raised the possibility of lay people carrying out mental health assessments. I do not have a preconceived view, but I would be interested to know whether the new regime will recruit lay assessors for the mental health component of the tests that we are considering.

My final point relates to observations fromSue Christoforou and Mind. I shall quote, becausethe quotation raises powerfully the main issue of this amendment and a theme that is a leitmotif of the whole Bill. We have personal advisers under the pathways programme and we will have personal advisers under the new regime, but do they and will they have enough training? Later I hope to show that the advisers themselves do not feel that they have enough of a skill set to be able to do the extra things required of them under the new regime.

Mind said:

“The majority of doctors who carry out PCAs”—

this is under the current regime—

“will be locums. Most will be GPs who have done a day’s work and will do PCAs in addition.”

This is Mind’s view; I am not necessary impugning all those who work with and for Atos Origin. I have seen a simulated version of Atos Origin’s PCA in Woking and it seems to be a professional company.

“They do get some condition-specific training but it is very limited. They certainly do not have much in-depth knowledge of mental health problems in the experience of our”—

Mind’s—

“advisers who work with people with mental health problems.

I spoke recently to one of our welfare rights advisers. She attended, I think, 50 PCAs with various clients and in only one case did she find the person to have any understanding of what the issues were, to treat the person with respect, and to conduct the assessment at a pace that could give the person the opportunity to discuss as much as needed to be discussed in order for the assessment to be thorough. So I think, given that40 per cent. of people in receipt of incapacity benefit at the moment have a primary diagnosis of mental health problems, not to mention whatever per cent there is of the rest of the caseload who have a secondary diagnosis, it has to be the case that the doctors conducting PCAs have to have a thorough, possibly NVQ level three mental health training at the very least, as indeed should decision makers, in order to make proper judgments.”

We are talking not about decision makers here, but about the cutting edge assessment that is the subject of the clause and the amendment. I certainly know from one of the Department for Work and Pensions reports on evaluation of pathways that the NVQ level 2 was the average for incapacity benefit personal assessments. An NVQ level 3 in mental health is being asked for here.

Those observations may be partial. Perhaps Atos or Ministers will dispute what Mind has said, but it is an interesting debating point which relates to the amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that point. I have no idea whetherDr. Boardman’s suggestion that lay people can be trained to do mental health assessment is sensible or not, but it would be useful to hear the Minister’s views on that and on the point that the Secretary of State raised in evidence to the Select Committee.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Good morning, Mr. Amess. Earlier in our deliberations the Minister outlined a process whereby, at the early stages of an assessment, a paper sift would be possible. I have been looking at cases in my constituency and at the level to which the NHS can now treat conditions that hitherto were untreatable. I cite the case of a woman in my constituency who was horrifically attacked. She was unfortunate to be attacked but lucky to be alive, given the extent of her injuries. She would like to work now but, unfortunately, the consultant vascular surgeon who is treating the injuries to her brain says that she would be ill advised to do so because he has been able to stabilise her only enough to be at home, not to be able to go out to work.

Under the current system, people looking at my constituent and answering the questions would assess her as suitable to work because they would not look closely enough at the consultant’s advice. I want the new process to take account of such clear advice from a consultant that someone would be harmed by going through the process, and that the injuries are such that it could be a threat to their life if such a process were to continue. We should all be assured that the almost daily advances of medical science can catch up with the process that we are trying to deliver for another part of someone’s life.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I should like to add one or two comments to this extremely interesting set of exchanges and questions for the Minister. If one looks at the rubric of the clause it seems to be about limited capability for work, which is a kind of lay assessment that, on the other hand, requires professional expertise to provide the gateway. I think that trying to blend those two concepts is inherent in some of the comments made already and, indeed, in the difficulties that the traditional PCA system has met—the high level of appeals and so forth. That is not because assessors are wicked or malicious people proceeding in a hurry, but because their job is inherently very difficult.

My comments are informed by my now dated experience of being responsible for the disability brief, and by when the Department kindly arranged for me to visit Atos—or rather its precursor, Schlumberger—to observe how it trained its assessing doctors. One day, I sat in on a session. I went with some trepidation because I thought, as a lay person, “What on earth can I do?”, but, by the second hour of the process, I realised that essentially we were in the same job—I did not see theirs as being very different from mine or, indeed, any other Member’s when dealing with a constituent at an advice bureau or surgery, depending on what we call them. The job involved putting people at ease, enabling them to express themselves and forming a general view of their condition. That is a stream of the matter.

As I and others in Committee have said before, the ability to encourage claimants or customers—call them what we may—to act positively and to express themselves authentically is an important part of the process. However, the assessment is a gateway to a benefit, so it is perhaps understandable that it should require a professional framework, particularly for the physical side. Historically, the IB process has been driven primarily by physical conditions, such as muscular skeletal or circulatory problems, but now it is largely informed by people’s mental conditions. I am saying not that too much emphasis is placed on mental health, but that anything that might lead to a clinical illness is examined—the claimant might just lack confidence. Tuning that change is a difficult part of the process.

I suspect that somebody will ask me to comment, albeit briefly, on my visit last Friday to the pathways to work pathfinder in Derby. Members were aware that I was going, and I found it a positive experience and quite encouraging. However, I came across some information about the mental health aspect which made me think, “Well, I have not really focused on this before.” Conventionally, it is said that some 40 per cent. of benefit claims fall within the mental health framework, but if we include secondary mental health effects—for instance, for people who have a physical condition such as back pain that has consequences for how they feel—we are probably looking at two out of every three claimants. So that is a very big part of the matter.

This is a proposition not a conclusion: the Minister should address the fact that more people are presenting a series of mental conditions, which are inherently less easy to measure, and indeed, doctors are often less equipped to deal with them than with somebody who has, say, a limb deficiency or circulatory problems.The situation is becoming more difficult. The tests encourage people to show their capability for work, not whether they have a series of finite medical conditions that would make work impossible.

That is a complex and difficult matter. My exchange with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) was designed to eliminate some of the practical difficulties. Does one have a full suite of people taking account of allthe circumstances? Is the cure for that lack of omnicompetence worse than the disease of not being omnicompetent? Those are difficult issues for the Department.

I add one more thing. I suspect that there might be a medical test here. It would fall outside the Committee’s remit to ruminate on whether the law, and in particular the growth of administrative law, has helped the nation’s commonwealth, as it were, or impeded it. It is certainly very good for the lawyers—a member of my family is a practitioner in that area—but I am not sure whether it adds to the sum of human happiness.

One of the difficulties, if one uses lay people, is that the nature of their assessment and the appropriateness of their training become directly relevant. There is a certain expectation about an examining doctor who has been registered with the General Medical Council and who meets certain professional standards and indeed professional commitments and duties. No matter how they behave, and they normally try to behave in a highly professional manner, they have at least some cover for their position. If, on the other hand, one uses a barefoot doctor or a lay helper on the medical health side, however well intentioned and however well skilled, it may be that they do not have the kind of professional coverage that would prevent them or the Department from being challenged in court. These are serious issues that the Minister and his Department need to address.

Where we go from here should be informed by one simple test. We need to be able to assess people’s capacity for work in the round. We need to do it in a way that is positive and sympathetic and emphasises their capacity and not what they cannot do. That is going to require a rather broader and more holistic approach than we have had hitherto.

I rehearse one more point as the Minister might like to say something and I do not want to make it seem banal by leaving it till the end. As he will know, and indeed I have asked questions of the Department, there are now logic-driven protocols as to how to do assessments. He has referred to the number of points that is required to pass, or fail, the test, according to the way one looks at it. I do not think this is wrong as long as it is not seen as being a literal-minded exercise. It is a guide to good decision making. Perhaps he could say a little about the use of protocols. Also, how is this being mapped on to the experience of GPs who are referring persons for incapacity benefit or writing them sick notes? We need to have in these complicated areas a better understanding of the process. We need people to know what they are talking about, to be able to exchange information professionally in the right way and to have the right training to carry out assessments.

I am sympathetic to Ministers as they try to pick a way through that and I would be even more sympathetic if they could reassure us that logic and protocols will be used as a servant and not as a master in the process. The underlying principle should be to support, identify and celebrate the capacity of the individual rather than to conduct some penal exercise.

I am sure the word on the street is that the exercise is designed to take people off benefit at all costs. I know that that is not the Minister’s intention, and it is certainly not our intention or that of anyone in the Committee, but the process has to be fair and in the end fairness is probably how this will stand or fall.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

May I too welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Amess? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, which, in the best spirit of the employment and support allowance, has been light-touch and supportive, with minimal use of sanctions.

I think that this is an important amendment because, on the face of it, it is not a matter of law at all. The reality is that the Secretary of State does not need regulations passed by this House to insist on proper training for people who carry out the assessments or indeed for Jobcentre Plus personal advisers.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for tabling the amendment because it allows us to draw attention to an important failing in the current system. I ask the Minister not simply to deal with the point of law and whether the amendment should be covered by the regulations, but to address the wider issues that have come up, put most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). In particular, I draw the Minister’s attention to some comments by the Citizens Advice Bureau. It says that it has

“particular concerns about the ability of Job Centre Plus personal advisers to appropriately and accurately identify the support needs of people with fluctuating and unpredictable conditions or those whose conditions are likely to get progressively better or worse over time.”

It continued:

“Customers with mental health problems were seen as particularly challenging and ever more experienced advisers did not feel confident working with them.”

That was according to recent DWP research. There is clearly an issue about the training of Jobcentre Plus advisers, and if it is important for those advisers,it is doubly important for those who perform the assessments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and I held a seminar in which we invited representatives from disability organisations to talk about welfare reform. One very moving submission came from a lady who had a bipolar disorder. Hers was a fluctuating condition and she said that when she went through her PCA, she felt obliged to “ham it up”—her words—because although at the time she might have been feeling fine, she had little confidence in the assessor understanding how a fluctuating condition works. She was worried that unless she pretended to be suffering at that moment, she might not get the right assessment.

Yesterday, I was in Sheffield and I met a man with a learning disability who said that his biggest fear about the assessment was that the assessors did not really understand the concept of hidden disability. It is easy to grasp the disability of someone in a wheelchair, but harder if the disability is hidden. I draw particular attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). This is a hugely complicated area; it is particularly difficult to grasp the difference between a learning disability and a mental illness. A lot of people with learning disabilities also have a mental illness, but it is crucial, if there is to be confidence in the system, that assessors understand that difference and know what can be sorted out by the NHS and what is a long-term condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds made the point clearly that we do not want the debate to descend to the level of tabloid arguments about welfare scroungers. If the assessment does not have credibility, and if the ability of assessors to accurately determine whether someone has a hidden disability and to discriminate between that and mental illness is not absolutely rock solid, we will give ammunition to those trying to discredit the whole process.

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I do not want to make a speech, so I shall keep this to an intervention. What the hon. Gentleman said is very important, especially on the distinction between a mental illness and a learning disability. However, there is no way in the world that national legislation or even local practice can ensure that those will always be correctly identified. There is absolutely no way of doing that. It is important, however, that this legislation involves organisations with expertise in the identification of those differences and includes them in the assessment phase in order to deal with claimants and show them where to go so that they can access the help that they need. That is what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was talking about—a more holistic approach. Rather than using lay people, we should bring in organisations—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. The Committee is delighted to hear the hon. Lady, but I think that that did turn out to be a speech.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she made an important point, enthused, I am sure, by her work on the Select Committee.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

As we look forward to the use of contractors in pathways, which my hon. Friend and I would be happy to accept as a principle, is it notalso extremely important that there is also some commonality of understanding as to the availability of expertise and practice? Although the contractors are responsible for their areas, they need to operate within the same general framework so that the test is not merely seen to be fair nationally, but is also seen to operate evenly and fairly between different localities.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I do not want to prejudge what the Minister says, but I suspect that the fact that this test is conducted by contractors gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to include any training requirements into the contractual stipulations, and that would probably preclude the necessity for legislation or regulation. I completely agree with the comment of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) that no national legislation can deal with the complexity of these issues.

All I ask the Minister to address is not the legal point on this amendment, but the substantive point of the very real concern about the understanding of hidden disabilities, in particular among people performing the PCA as it is now or the revised PCA and, indeed, among Jobcentre Plus personal advisers. If this programme is to be successful, there is no doubt that this issue needs to be addressed.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Good morning to you, Mr. Amess, on this rather dreich morning that we are enjoying in SW1. I am delighted to see you with us again.

To respond first of all to the comment by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), by necessity, I have to respond to the legal and technical sense of the amendment, but I am happy to respond also to the common-sense comments. I accept it is a probing amendment, but let me explain why it would not be legally necessary. All health care professionals undergo such training as designated by the Secretary of State that he or she considers to be appropriate before they are approved to carry out medical assessments to determine limited capability for work. With regard to the specific suggestion that we place this provision in regulations, we cannot as a Committee, a Government or Parliament micro-manage every intervention and interface between a health care professional or a health care practitioner and each of the customers. To put it in regulations would be generally accepted as impractical. It would leave us sluggish and with an inability to respond to ever-changing circumstances. It would also fly in the face of so much else we are trying to do in terms of empowering personal advisers and ensuring that at a local level a situation evolves and changes quickly enough to be able to support people regardless of their circumstance or condition.

The Secretary of State has the power to designate what would be appropriate training and also the appropriate support that either assessment staff or personal advisers should undertake and offer to customers. As this has proven through pathways to be an effective way to operate, I think that it is the best way to proceed. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts the strictly legal point that we have the power at the moment and that this power is entirely flexible and enables us to respond to evolving circumstances.

I will try to respond in the time available to the 25 or 27 questions that were asked, but if hon. Members do not think that I have done so they can intervene or we can take it up further in our proceedings.

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, it is absolutely clear—we said it on Second Reading and we say it again today on the record—that, as we change our ambition, in trying to support people who in the past have been written off, and on the basis that we are not being party political at the moment, let us just say that they were written off for whatever reason by —[Interruption.]

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Successive Governments.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I have been provoked.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

If I could help the Minister out inthe spirit of consensus, may I ask whether a drafting suggestion would be acceptable? Successive Governments up until and including this one have, regrettably, tended to write off those who have been furthest away from work. All politicians of all parties should acknowledge that they have not performed as they should in helping those people. We should all celebrate that acknowledgment on both sides today in Committee. Does the Minister agree?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I do not wish to try your patience, Mr. Amess, by making this point: I would not accept the amendment, but I would accept that successive Conservative Governments deliberately allowed people to be written off.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

This is not a profitable line to go down. Our response to the Minister will simply be to ask why, if the problem was so serious, the Government waited eight or nine years before doing something about it.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I appeal to the Committee to get back to the amendment.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

You are right, Mr. Amess.

The amendments are about how we support the2.7 million people who are on incapacity benefit. Pathways has been exceptionally successful. The funding for pathways was not entirely consensual. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey was not here and did not have the opportunity to vote against the money for pathways, but if he had been, he would have had the same opportunity as his hon. Friends.

We are having a conversation about the future and how we support the 2.7 million who are on incapacity benefit. If no action had been taken in recent years, that figure would be 4 million. The trajectory through the 1980s, half the 1990s and up till now would have put that figure at 4 million. I say that simply because I was encouraged to do so by the hon. Gentleman on the basis that it is important to have consensus about the future. However, let us not forget that people on incapacity or equivalent benefits have not been supported as they should have been and that is across Governments. There was a genuinely dark period for about 10 years, when as a matter of public policy, incapacity benefit numbers were allowed to treble.

We can leave it there if hon. Members wish, or we can continue the conversation. It is nevertheless a statement of fact that incapacity benefit numbers trebled over that period. Nothing different was happening in the environment. We did not have a sudden outburst of a certain condition or ailment. There was nothing different in our air, our water or our food chain. The numbers simply trebled. We can discuss why that happened.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

May I encourage the Minister to return to what he is seeking to do in the Bill? If he wants to talk about what happened under the previous Government more than nine years ago, we will feel obliged to respond. We interpret those events differently, but I do not think that it is a good use of the Committee’s time to rake over those arguments. We certainly do not want to have that discussion—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I appeal to the Committee for the final time. I ask Members to return to the amendments.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I will do exactly as you suggest. Perhaps we will continue that conversation another time, perhaps even in another place. It is important not to forget the past so that we can avoid repeating the mistakes.

Returning to the consensual tone of five minutes ago, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked about specific support. I was in the middle of saying that if we are to achieve the ambition that we all now share to cater for those2.7 million customers, with their various conditions and complicated and multifaceted needs, and for ESA customers from 2008, we will need to change the training in Jobcentre Plus and Atos Origin. When pathways is rolled out nationally, we will need to change the training given to personal advisers through the private and voluntary sectors. We will need to change the way in which all our agencies—not just the DWP, those to whom we subcontract and Jobcentre Plus, but other aspects of the Government, including the health service—make support available.

Quite fairly, the hon. Member for South-West Surrey mentioned the Citizens Advice briefing on the clauses and amendments before us. It says:

“Citizens Advice therefore recommends that adequate resources and training be provided to personal advisers to ensure that those in the support group who chose to participate in work focused interviews are able to do so in a meaningful way.”

I agree absolutely with the thrust of that quote. Of course, it is about a specific group of customers, but the general thrust—that we need to provide personal advisers with adequate resources and training—is entirely fair. We are addressing that point, which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised in his amendment.

I was asked specifically about autism.

Mr. Boswellrose—

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I would like to make some progress before I give way.

I was asked specifically about autism, which is another example of what we are talking about, although there are many others. We will all have come across such examples as constituency Members of Parliament and in preparing for these deliberations and we will all have met people and listened to their experiences. Entirely fairly, the National Autism Society put it me that a personal adviser who does not have knowledge or experience of supporting people with autism could mistake a customer with autism for someone who was being unco-operative or even belligerent, and think that they were failing to participate. We will ensure that that important point and others that are made to us feed through the process. Indeed, that is why, in preparing for the revised public consultation, I and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), ensured that autism groups could join some of the technical working groups in which they had not taken part before. We did that to ensure that we were sensitive to the autism spectrum.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

It just occurs to me that the Minister might like to comment on the fact that there are also quite strong management and organisational implications for the Department. Much as we want outreach—it will certainly be important that rural areas are also covered—it is equally important that the body of expertise in a pathways area or its successor, whether contractorised or in the Department’s capacity, should draw on the advice of specialists with background knowledge of the individual that is appropriate to the case.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back from his sojourn in Derby and I am delighted to see him back in his place. He is right in the sense that it is important, certainly when subcontracting, that we bring in niche experience and niche service. I will not say which organisation might be involved, because Ministers are, quite rightly, not involved in the contracting process.

Let me step away from the matter of autism for a moment, however, and deal with the general point. I recently visited constituencies in west central Scotland to listen to the experiences of people in pathways and on long-term IB. I had the sense that trade unions, for example, which had previously represented and supported the work force in heavy industry—there is no longer any heavy industry in that community—and which had campaigned for their members while they were in work, could bid for some of the contracts to support people in pursuing their right to work now that they were out of work and had been on IB for a long period. Such people might have been on IB for10 years, but that does not preclude a trade union from becoming involved in providing the support for work-focused interviews that will get people closer to the labour market. In talking about private and voluntary sector pathways, we have not yet properly discussed the role of trade unions and other progressive organisations and charities in the voluntary sector in supporting people using the relationship of relative trust that exists already. That would be important.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

In the spirit of the Minister’s remarks, does he not agree that it should at least be open for a consortium or partnership that may well involve some of the groups that he mentioned as well as the private sector or other representatives to make a joint bid?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and we are looking at ways in which we can further devolve that contract, so that a group of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors can work together and say, “In and of ourselves, we could not provide this, but collectively in this area we think that we could”. That would be an important and welcome departure from the current situation.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

If I may, I should like to return to the substance of the clause, which is about the training provided to assessors. With the indulgence of the Chair, we widened the debate to include Jobcentre Plus personal advisers in general. I think that the Minister said that he recognised that something needed to be done and that plans are afoot. Will he give us details about those plans?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I think that Jobcentre Plus staff undergo 13 weeks of initial training and are encouraged to undertake further training. However, it is clear that, by 2008, Jobcentre Plus will not be undertaking PCAs—indeed, in most cases it will not be undertaking five of the six work-focused interviews. It will be conducting only the first of them, in most instances.

Despite the fact that the role of Jobcentre Plus is changing, it will remain an important organisation; it will still come face to face with most customers—although probably only once because the other five work-focused interviews will be conducted by the private and voluntary sectors. It will meet people with different experiences. Many people at Jobcentre Plus have already undertaken excellent training and done fantastic work on pathways. Indeed, the success of pathways is due in part to the skills that many people at Jobcentre Plus have that enable them to support claimants. The hon. Member for Daventry saw that for himself only last week.

Between now and 2008, on the basis that Jobcentre Plus will see all sorts of people who until now it might not have, and be expected to provide them with support and advice that until now it has not been expectedto provide, the training will have to be adjusted accordingly. I do not have a set of prescriptive solutions that state exactly what will happen in 2008. Jobcentre Plus’s training will adapt to the demands of ESA in 2008 and we will work with its senior managers to ensure that that does happen.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I do not want us to career off into the realm of personal advisers just yet because we will get to that later.

I think that the amendment relates to the skill levels of assessors involved in the reformed PCA, and the work-related activity and work-focused health-related assessments. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to my point about the wider range of professionals at the new reformed PCA stage that the Secretary of State was talking about in March. What level of training will they have?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, I shall come on to the content of the amendment. We can pick up on the wider points about the training of personal advisers later in proceedings.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned comments by Mind—both his and Mind’s intentions were fair, I know—but Atos Origin has 273 full-time doctors. As he knows, it is not a hotch-potch of part-time GPs doing extra shifts. It has 273 full-time doctors. GPs who work half-day a week as part of their involvement in the assessments have to undergo similar refresher training to doctors at Atos Origin. As he accepts, those doctors do not do it for some overtime, as is also the case with Mind.

The specifics of training Atos Origin and other health care professionals relate to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West. They will receive training in disability analysis, which of course requires different skills, by 2008. The training includes aspects of clinical medicine, the gathering and evaluation of evidence and report writing. We know from our constituency experience that report writing has improved in recent years, but how the reports are structured and what is in them is still a source of friction. The language must be understandable to people with no medical background or experience, particularly those with fluctuating mental health conditions. There is also training in general customer care issues such as equal opportunities, how to handle or avoid complaints and how to carry out assessments sensitively. I believe that those undergoing the training also have to undertake four additional modules a year, and as we move towards 2008 we will assess whether that is the appropriate number.

On a point that my hon. Friends have raised, health care professionals will be expected to access additional information through the new PCA when appropriate, perhaps from a local GP or increasingly from other health care professionals in the community—psychiatric nurses and others—who have a relationship of trust and knowledge with customers and experience of them that an Atos Origin doctor might not have. That is the sort of additional information that the Secretary of State alluded to.

We will ensure that the technical groups keep the revised PCA under review so that it is fit for purpose, particularly on mental health, and is achieving what we want. That is on top of the commitment that we have already made that the PCA will run alongside the current PCA, so that there are no unintended consequences.

I have responded to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West made on additional medical experts. In an earlier sitting, he asked how we will gather relevant information, on time, that is clear enough for decisions to be made. My response was that we will ensure that there is an additional phase of reconsideration. We will not simply gather information and come to a judgment that might be wrong because not all the relevant information has been provided, asked for, or provided in the right way to enable an informed decision. The move towards reconsideration in advance of any appeals process will ensure that decisions are right the first time round and based on accurate information. In response to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, it is important to say that the chief medical officer, on behalf of the Secretary of State, agrees the content of the training syllabus and the materials used. That will provide an additional opportunity for technical and professional input as we move towards 2008 and the employment and support allowance.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the comments of Dr. Boardman. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I are medically qualified, as Dr. Boardman is. I believe that his suggestion would be difficult to carry out, but a number of people have argued the case for training others to provide the mental health support that folk require. For example, yesterday I met representatives of the Scottish Association for Mental Health, who said that they wanted to find different ways to support people with mental health issues. They mentioned their own pilots, whereby the association, or those working on its behalf with mental health experience, can support people without needing three or four years of medical training. I did not commit that that is where we wish to be; I said that we should continue the conversation to see whether it is a valuable route for us to continue along.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

This possibly answers or anticipates the Minister’s answer to my specific question about what might be termed the legal cover for this exercise. Should a possible model be that the assessment process—it will be a process rather than a spot event in many cases—is monitored or signed off by a medical practitioner, drawing on information that others, who might not be formally qualified but who are appropriately trained, bring to that assessment?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, the issue is to continue that conversation to find out the most appropriate way to support people with mental health experience. I am happy to have that conversation with him and others.

On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Daventry, through the PCA and the revised PCA a medical health practitioner would carry out the assessments, so technically they would sign off the assessment. It is important to put that on the record. However, they would not make the decision. They would make the assessment, but the decision maker would make the decision. Hopefully that reassures the hon. Gentleman that a medical professional would be involved in the assessment.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Does he not also agree with something that I have gleaned from my experience from Jobcentre Plus: when the decision maker considers the report of the medical practitioner in a PCA case even now, it is not so much that they hold up their hands and say, “The whole thing is wrong medically” but that they refer it back? There is then a dialogue, or expression of views, which enables the process to be refined and cross-checked.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Gentleman raises, for the first time in our proceedings, this important point: a decision maker is not in place to second-guess the medical assessment of Atos Origin. The decision maker is a legal necessity, as the legal responsibility lies with them. The decision maker, when looking at the paperwork, might say, “Two contrary boxes have been ticked. This does not make sense. A procedure has not been followed,” after which they would go back to the assessor and ask more questions to probe further. The decision maker is in place to ensure that processes have been followed and that there is a robustness to the journey for the customer. They will then make their decision based on that.

It is important to say clearly that the decision maker has a legal responsibility, and that they have a responsibility to ensure that processes have been followed. They are not in place to overrule, in a medical sense, the recommendations from those who carry out the assessments.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

My hon. Friend has just made an important point, but it brings into question what happens when two medical opinions directly contradict each other, particularly where conditions are more rare or less well understood. This might be a difficult area, although possibly a small one. Where a contradiction of opinion exists, how can it be properly ironed out to the satisfaction of the person who is being assessed?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

That is another important point. On the revised PCA, the individual carrying out the assessment would ultimately make the judgment. You would not thank us for going through the whole customer journey again, Mr. Amess. Jobcentre Plus would initially ascertain whether it thought it was appropriate for the person to go for an assessment or whether they could immediately be admitted to the support group based on paper evidence. We would prefer that to be the route for most entering the support group. Ultimately, the decision as to the impact of that illness, ailment or condition on a person’s ability to undertake work-related activity or to work at all will be a decision of the person carrying out the assessment. All the evidence provided in writing and in the face-to-face interview would be taken into account. Ultimately, the person doing the assessment is the arbiter of all the different evidence. They will reach a conclusion and make a recommendation that will go to the decision maker. The customer, who will also increasingly have the right of reconsideration, will then have the right of appeal. Additional medical evidence—perhaps from their GP—will be heard on appeal.

As my hon. Friend acknowledges, it is important to make a distinction between the different medical views: a GP is there primarily to diagnose, rather than to assess the impact of the relevant condition on the customer’s ability to work. There will be two different medical practitioners for two different purposes. On appeal, the issue about which my hon. Friend is concerned could be raised.

We had a one-minute conversation about why the amendment is not technically necessary: because in our process there is a flexible power to amend training as is necessary. I encourage the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who has been offered additional reassurance, to withdraw his amendment.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that detailed response. I take on board the Minister’s points about the legality of the amendments. However, I press him for clarity on three further points. Not wishing to try the Committee’s patience, I shall do so briefly. Some of what he said at the end of his remarks was important and needs to be teased out.

The Minister finished by discussing the role of the decision maker, an issue that could be brought up under a number of clauses. It may as well be dealt with now. During our last sitting, we discussed the process by which someone went from their assessment for limited capability to work to their assessment for limited capability for work-related activity and then, potentially, on to their work-focused health-related assessment. In a previous sitting, the Minister stated that a claimant is potentially sanctionable if they do not turn up for the work-focused health-related assessment and that the Government intended the claimant to take part in that assessment immediately after their assessments for limited capability for work and for work-related activity. That hangs crucially on the question of when the decision is taken and the decision about entitlement to the benefit support component, or whatever, is taken. If someone attending a first work-focused health-related assessment immediately after the other two assessments can be sanctioned at that point, that implies that the decision is taken when the Atos Origin doctor decides, not when the information goes to the decision maker to confirm, as the Minister said, that the process has been gone through properly and so on.

My point is important legally. Someone could be sanctioned following their decision not to participate in a work-focused health-related assessment because they believed that the decision as to whether they were entitled to the support component was wrong and they wished to appeal. I should be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that point.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I understand the sensitivity of the hon. Gentleman’s point. Having reflected on the process at the weekend, I thought that it must be open to any claimant or customer, at any stage, to abort the process—or rather not allow the process to advance beyond the stage under consideration—unless and until a decision had formally been taken. In other words, if this is a test on limited capability for work, it would be open to the Department to say, “Without prejudice to this test and the formal decision on it, would you like to be considered for limited capacity for work-related activity?” However, it would be open to the individual to say, if they wished, “No, I want the issue out of the way. Then we can come back and consider any subsequent issues under later provisions”.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that intervention, with which I partly agree. I was convinced by the Minister’s previous remarks that it made sense for the assessments for the limited capability for work and for work-focused activity to take place at the same time, and that the break that the hon. Member for Daventry wants the claimant to have could legitimately take place after the assessment for limited capability for work benefit, and before the work-focused health-related assessment. The question whether one is entitled to the benefit is one of the criteria that is considered before a sanction can be applied. If someone has a work-focused health-related assessment immediately following that, but before a decision maker has taken the decision, that decision not to attend should not be sanctionable. I apologise for going into this matter now, but as we are following on from the Minister’s remarks about decision makers, I thought it was worth pursuing.

I have a couple of other quick points. The Minister gave a comprehensive list of training that Atos Origin doctors are required to undergo, which I found very encouraging. One thing that he did not mention was training on when it would be appropriate to bring in outside advice, in other words training on making decisions about whether to bring someone else in when the person making the assessment does not realise that he has reached the limit of his expertise. It is important that doctors can make that decision and that the decision maker, when looking at the file, can say that perhaps someone else should have been brought in and perhaps the procedure was not followed properly in that case.

An earlier point about the opportunity to bring these matters forward with Atos Origin concerned revisions of its contract. Will the Minister tell us whether that contract is being revised anyway in the context of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? If so, does that provide an opportunity to make some of the points that we have been discussing in this important debate clearer?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

In order to pave the way for the Minister’s response, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister owes the Committee a moment of time on the use of logic-driven protocols as part of the process as against the by and large assessments which have perhaps applied in the past?

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual degree of foresight, predicts the third point that I wish the Minister to address. The personal capability assessment works through logic-driven protocols and the logic-integrated medical assessment system. Some of the disability organisations and others who are involved in the consultative groups for the redesign of the personal capability assessment have been given only limited information about the LiMA computer system that is used to administer the assessment. It is therefore important to consider how it works.

Answers are prompted by questions about a person’s typical day, for example. That is a good way to have the conversation. I can fully accept that. Answers are inputted into the system using, wherever possible, pre-coded responses. When one asks about a typical day and certain responses come up the doctor is asked to fit the response into a pre-coded response. The pre-coded responses themselves are then linked tothe descriptors which are described in some detail in the documentation about the revised PCA. That link between the pre-coded responses and the descriptors is where the question about protocols is particularly important.

Will the Minister consider the following point? The stakeholder groups—I assume that they will continue to help manage the process of changing the assessment—should continue to be involved not just with the descriptors that are being used, but also with the operation of LiMA and its effectiveness. If possible the external stakeholders should be engaged in an ongoing basis in monitoring the effectiveness of LiMA so that we make sure that the link between the pre-coded responses and the descriptors continues to be valid and does not lead to decisions being made which perhaps the Government or the Committee would not intend to be made.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

In seeking three specific points of clarification, the hon. Gentleman tempts us to reopen our entire debate. I will try to respond to those three specific areas. The first area was when and how the decision is formally taken and the relationship between that and the Atos Origin assessment. As we discussed in a previous debate, if someone attains the 15 points and is therefore entitled to ESA—we can have another competition as to whether that amounts to success or failure and that comes down to perceptions—and in the same interview someone meets one of the 46 descriptors that we have listed on page 18 of the draft regulations, then of course they would be in the support group. There would be no conditionality and there would be no requirement to undertake the work-focused health assessment.

If someone at that point says, “I do not want to be written off. I know that I have 15 points and I know that I meet one or two of the 46 descriptors but I still want to be in this system,” they would get the support group level of benefit, so they would have the higher rate of benefit. If they still wished to undertake the work-focused health assessment at that point they could do so. Regardless of what happens to them in that work-focused health assessment, if they do get closer to the labour market, based on the assessment that was undertaken by Atos Origin that they did have 15 points and did meet one of the descriptors, they would continue to receive that higher rate of benefit, as being part of the support group.

Where Atos Origin says that a person has 15 points and meets one or more of the 46 descriptors, the Atos Origin medical expert could then defer the work-focused health assessment. The decision maker would then examine all the paperwork. He is not there to second-guess the medical assessment of the medical expert from Atos Origin but simply to ensure that all of the procedures have been followed and that everything has been done within the laws that we agree on and the regulations that will be decided at a later point.

If the customer is told that they have the 15 points and are entitled to ESA but they do not meet any of the 46 descriptors and therefore they are not in a support group, they would be asked to undertakethe second interview for the work-focused health assessment. If the customer decided not to attend that interview there would be no sanction at that point. Any sanction, if appropriate, would be enacted at the point where a decision maker received the paperwork and the assessment took place. The customer would, of course, have the right of appeal as they have throughout this process on any decision that impacts on their level of benefits. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Atos Origin does an important and technically difficult piece of work for us all and all of our constituents. They know as well as we do that in the past there have been problems with their systems and they have sought to resolve those. The figure for the number of complaints about Atos Origin is down to 0.3 per cent. We can continue to find ways to reduce that 0.3 per cent even further.

With regard to disability organisations getting access to LiMA, they are happy to share that methodology and information with the disability organisations and, if they wish, will be happy to organise demonstrations of how the system works and dry run some cases to ensure that there is greater understanding of the system.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Minister has been very helpful in giving those assurances. May I take him back to something that he said a moment ago about the decision-making process when he tied the main function of the decision maker to ensuring that processes are correctly carried out? Let me rehearse with him some wider concerns, which might or might not apply to the decision maker. If, for example, there is an examining doctor and there appears to be a pattern building up of racial prejudice or a particular blind spot on some medical issue, would it be in the powers of the decision maker to have a conversation with the examining doctor about it? The conversation would not strictly be about the paperwork or the process. A skewing of the conclusions might give rise to concern, however, and it ought to be addressed or examined.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but it is better if the management information systems rather than the decision maker pick up on the issue. Work is under way to ensure that the systems are designed to pick up on wide variations in outcomes that are based on common character traits or the circumstances of the individual customer. There are different ways of implementing and assessing the 15 points or the 46 descriptors. If there are differences at the extremes, whereby one medical assessor has a 95 per cent. outcome for access to the support group and another has none, something is happening, and it is for the management information systems to pick up on. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the way in which we pick up on that important point, but it is important that we do so.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 9

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 152, in page 7, line 10, leave out first ‘is’ and insert

‘and such other matters as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe’.

I understand that there will be a clause stand part debate, so my remarks on the amendment will be brief. Its purpose is to probe the Government’s thinking about the test of limited capability for work-related activity. The regulations make it clear that exemption from conditionality—in other words, from membership of the support group—will be a purely medical decision, rather than one that introduces any other, for example, social factors. It will be a purely medical decision based on an assessment of whether someone meets any one of the 46 descriptors.

Other factors might be worthy of consideration, and it would be useful if the Minister explained in more detail why the exemption from conditionality for the support group is based solely on medical criteria. What is the conception underlying the way in which the support component has been created? The amendment seeks to introduce a power to allow other factors,such as caring responsibilities, to be taken into account. Could they be introduced to decisions about the support component? Although they are outsidethe descriptors, the amendment would allow for the introduction of a social model and take account ofthe wider barriers to employment that people in the support group might face. If such factors cannot be taken into account in considering someone’s entitlement to membership of the support group, will the regulations ensure that other matters such as caring responsibilities can be considered when deciding whether someone entitled to the work-related activity component will be subject to conditionality, whether that be membership of the support group or work-related activity?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point; as he said, we might have a stand part debate—with your permission, Mr. Amess. As he knows, clause 9 provides that the question whether a person’s capability for work-related activity is limited by his physical or mental condition, and if so, whether the limitation would make it unreasonable to require him to undertake such activity, is to be determined in regulations. As the Committee knows, I published a draft of those regulations two weeks ago on the day when the Committee of Selection met.

Our belief that work is a right underpins much of the Committee’s deliberations and was behind the genesis of the Bill. However, we recognise that for some, work is simply not possible. The support group has been created for individuals whose functional limitation is such that it would be unreasonable to require them to engage in work-related activity. As I have said, and as hon. Members have mentioned, that will be based on falling under one of the 46 listed descriptors provided to the Committee in regulation 3 of the draft regulations. Other non-medical circumstances such as caring responsibilities might make it difficult for ESA customers to engage in work-focused interviews or undertake work-related activity, but it would not be appropriate to place such factors on a prescriptive list in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

The Committee has been provided with a copy of the draft regulations on work-focused interviews, which will allow a personal adviser to defer an interview if he or she considers that it would not assist the person in question or be appropriate in the circumstances. Personal advisers will be able to take into account non-medical issues such as transport difficulties, caring responsibilities or bereavement when making a decision on deferrals. So although I could not give the hon. Gentleman much comfort in our earlier debate on what he described as a social model of assessment, I hope that the additional paperwork that has been provided reassures him that deferrals can take place on the bases that I have mentioned.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

The Minister will know that 10 per cent. of the 6 million carers are themselves disabled. If I understand his logic correctly, he is saying that personal advisers will be able to take account of that situation when considering whether to defer the requirement of work-related activity. Will he put himself in the shoes of a disabled person who, for example, cares for a disabled child? Simply deferring the obligation to participate in such activity is not adequate for someone in that situation. They simply do not have time to work, and it would be completely unrealistic to expect them to do so. Is there no possibility of greater flexibility so that in such a situation a person’s obligation to participate could be put on hold more permanently?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The length of time taken to grant a deferral will be a matter for the personal adviser. We are not talking about a day, a week or a month; it could be much longer than that. I think that there is unanimity about the idea that—except on medical grounds relating to access to a support group, although even then, those involved would be entitled to volunteer—the state and the Government should not be able to write anyone off by accident or design. In the scenario described by the hon. Gentleman, a deferral could be very long term; it would not be a case of “Please come back tomorrow.” It would clearly be inappropriate to request that someone undertake a work-focused interview or work-related activity in that scenario or in many of the others of which we are aware from our constituencies. That would be counter-productive and would add to the difficulties that people were experiencing, rather than doing what the Bill and the regulations are intended to do, which is, where possible, to lift the difficulties that people experience in getting closer to the labour market. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

The Minister will be aware that mental health organisations have expressed some concern about this issue. What might happen, for example, to an individual who had attempted to commit suicide? What flexibility might be introduced in those circumstances?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We are suggesting all sorts of flexibilities in the draft regulations, but we do not wish to be prescriptive and to say, “This is the exhaustive list.” I am not sure that this will enlighten my hon. Friend, but some of the provisions are taken from paragraph 35 of the current decision makers guide, and, even there, the list is not exhaustive. The guide refers to what constitutes a good cause for not meeting some of the conditionality in terms of, for example, medical appointments, caring responsibilities and religious adherence.

On the specific point about someone who has attempted suicide, my hon. Friend will accept that people attempt that dramatic act for all sorts of reasons, including low esteem and a sense of worthlessness. Although he is not suggesting this, others have suggested that we automatically passport into a support group everyone who has attempted suicide for whatever reason. Such people would not automatically be entitled to condition management, work-focused interviews and the chance to get closer to the labour market again. The Government have a sense that that is not the right way to support someone in those circumstances.

When the work-focused interview and work-related activity would add to the complications and the pressure that a person felt, there would of course be a deferral. However, it would be wrong to say that we should put everyone into the support group, regardless of the reason why they had attempted suicide, and particularly when the pressure on a person had built up because of long-term unemployment, material poverty, their perception of their wider role in the world and of their inability to support themselves and their family, and their sense of worthlessness. In cases where it would help, we need to afford such people the support of work-focused interviews to try to get them back to the labour market. In cases where it would not help, there would be a deferral, and we would not seek at any point to add to the difficulties that somebody already faced.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and particularly for clarifying the circumstances in which a work-focused interview—and, therefore, the degree to which a person who is not in the support group is subject to conditionality—can be deferred. The Minister has introduced a valuable concept into the discussion, and we might wish to probe it in much more detail on further clauses. For the time being, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 153, in clause 9, page 7, line 37, at end insert

‘and the safeguards that shall be applied when determining such matters’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 155, in clause 10, page 8, line 27, after ‘failure’, insert

‘and the safeguards that shall be applied when determining such matters’.

No. 173, in clause 17, page 15, line 2, at end add—

‘(c) safeguards that shall be applied when determining such matters.’.

No. 260, in clause 17, page 15, line 2, at end add—

‘(4) The circumstances which may be prescribed in section 17(3)(b) should include, but need not be restricted to, the person’s mental or physical condition.’.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

This group of amendments relates to safeguards and the power to determine what safeguards may apply. Amendment No. 153 concerns clause 9 and the other amendments relate to other clauses. They are designed to probe in more detail the Government’s intentions regarding the provision of safeguards, particularly in relation to clause 9 and the assessments of people’s capability for work-related activity.

Elsewhere in the benefits and social security system, variation is allowed in what Ministers consider to be “good cause”. By tabling my amendments and for the Committee’s benefit, I ask the Minister to explain in more detail certain points regarding, for instance, the acts or omissions to be covered, the judgment of acts or omissions being considered, particularly in relation to decisions about information provided by an individual, and the judgment of whether someone had good cause when unavailable for their limited capability for work-related activity assessment. Will that decision be left to the decision makers? To what extent is it envisioned that external contractors will have the power to exercise that judgment?

Other issues fall within the scope of the amendments. They relate to the period in which benefit claims for the support component can be backdated. For example, if someone has good cause for being unavailable for an assessment, or for not providing the required information in a timely fashion and, as a result, a period elapses longer than the 13 weeks envisioned, what will the rules be on the backdating of those claims, if it is decided eventually that that person is entitled to the support component?

Last week, we debated appeals and the need for an appeals process. The Minister was generally reassuring in his response in that debate. However, how will a case in which a decision about good cause has been made be treated in the appeals process? Again, if someone has good cause for any act or omission in relation to those assessments, to what extent will their right of appeal be affected? Would that right be unfettered? Indeed, will that person have the right of appeal against a decision that might suggest that they did not have good cause for an act or omission? I know that that sounds slightly technical, but it is important to clarify those points and so I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are intended to probe the Government’s intentions, as he said, and I can reassure him on a specific point: if someone’s entitlement to a support group has been rejected on the basis that, on assessment, they failed to meet one of the 46 descriptors, but on appeal it is found that that decision was incorrect, the ESA entitlement at the support group level will of course be reinstated and backdated to the start of the 14th week—the end of the 13-week assessment period. I hope that that reassures him.

As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 9 gives us powers to make regulations treating customers as not having limited capability for work-related activity, if they have failed without good cause to provide information or undergo a medical examination that they were asked to attend. However, we recognise the importance of ensuring that customers are not unfairly penalised if they have good reason for failing to undertake such an assessment.

Current legislation relating to incapacity benefit sets out the matters to be taken into account when determining whether a customer has shown good cause for failure to attend a medical examination to assess incapacity for work. Published guidance provides advice to the Department’s decision makers—I have referred to that in response to an intervention bymy hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)—on the steps to be taken to establish whether there is good cause.

We intend to follow the same approach under ESA. The draft regulations under clause 9, which the Committee has seen, set out the matters to be taken into account when determining whether a customer has shown good cause. As I mentioned, it is not an exhaustive list, because such an approach would be impractical and would not allow us the opportunity to innovate and be flexible, either nationally or at a local level. As we introduce ESA, it is important that we are able to adjust what constitutes good cause based on our experiences both from pathways and, from 2008 onwards, from the national introduction of ESA.

Amendment No. 155 was tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. Regulations under clause 10, which we will come to next, will set out what matters are to be taken into account when determining whether a customer has shown good cause for failure to take part in a work-focused health-related assessment. They will include taking into account the nature of the customer’s disability and his state of health at the time. I alluded in a previous debate to the fact that customers will have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against a decision that they failed to take part in a work-focused health-related assessment without good cause.

I turn to amendments Nos. 173 and 260. In clause 17, we are taking powers to disqualify a customer from ESA. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that there are already considerable safeguards in place as part of the disqualification decision-making process. First, a customer will be given the opportunity to explain why he has behaved in the way in which he has, and evidence will then be considered by the decision maker. The decision maker will also need to consider any other available evidence.

In considering the evidence, the decision maker will have to consider whether the customer has good cause for not complying, and must take into account certain prescribed factors and disregard others in accordance with the regulations. A decision maker will be able to take into account any factor that he considers relevant, including the state of a person’s mental and physical health. We follow the same practice under the current IB regime.

We recognise the particular difficulties that people with mental health conditions might face in complying with requests. We will ensure that a decision is not taken to penalise any person with a mental health condition or learning disability without contact having first been made with them, or their carer or healthcare team.

If the decision maker decides that a person is tobe disqualified, that person will, as I have already committed, have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. I assure the Committee that there will be adequate training for our staff and that safeguards will be put in place, meaning that customers will always be given opportunities to explain their actions before any disqualification occurs. It is important to mention that. I hope that my comments reassure the hon. Gentleman on the specific points that he has raised.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The Minister has raised some points that we might want to take up in the debate on later clauses, but for the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end add—

‘(5) Regulations under subsection (1) shall—

(a) ensure the full programme of work focused interviews is offered to those in the support group who indicate a desire to take part in these aspects of the programme,

(b) not penalise those persons for failing to participate in these activities, and

(c) treat engagement in—

(i) part time work,

(ii) voluntary work,

(iii) training courses, and

(iv) community activities

as valid outcomes from the work focused interview process that would not automatically lead to a suspension of payment of the employment and support allowance.’.

The amendment is one of the most important that Conservative Members will ask the Committee to consider. I should remind hon. Members that the explanatory notes state that

“the Government’s intention is that those receiving the support component should be able to volunteer to take part in”

work-related activity

“if they wish to do so.”

Despite the Government’s best intentions, the Bill fails to offer a realistic option of work-related activity to the most severely disabled.

We have had discussions this morning about how eligibility for entry into the support group is decided. We talked about the 46 descriptors. I do not want to read them all out, but perhaps I may remind the Committee of one or two, just so that all hon. Members will have in mind who precisely is meant. The category, for example, entitled “Walking or moving on level ground” relates to people who are not able manually to propel a wheelchair

“more than 30 metres without repeatedly stopping, experiencing breathlessness or severe discomfort.”

“Manual dexterity” relates to someone who cannot

“pick up a £1 coin or equivalent with either hand.”

The category of “Continence” relates to someone with

“no voluntary control over bowel evacuation”,

and the category on cleaning includes someone who cannot clean their own torso without receiving physical assistance from another person. The heading “Conveying food or drink to his mouth” includes someone who

“cannot convey food or drink to his mouth without receiving physical assistance from another person”.

Finally, as to learning disabilities and, potentially, mental illness, the list includes reference to someone who

“cannot initiate and sustain basic personal action, for example, the organisation and completion of a simple task, without regular prompting and supervision given by a person in the presence of the claimant”.

What we are really talking about, as the Minister has said many times, is someone who conforms to just one of the 46 descriptors. We are talking about people for whom it is unrealistic to expect that it will be easy to move towards a full-time job—people who might require massive amounts of coaching even to be able to get a part-time job. It may even never be realistic to expect them to go into full-time employment. We are therefore talking about not only the most vulnerable people but the people furthest from the labour market.

I have said to the Committee before that the Opposition hope that the Bill can be as bold for members of the support group as it can for members of the work-related activity group. The Secretary of State confirmed the comments in the notes during the debate in the House on 24 July. He also said clearly that he wanted people in the support group to be able to

“access all the appropriate support available”—[Official Report, 24 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 623.]

I should have been very happy with that statement if he had left off the word “available” and said that he wanted everyone in the group to be able to access all the appropriate support, but his use of that word gives rise to some concern. [Interruption.]—I hear mutterings from a sedentary position and I do not suggest that there was any intention to use words carefully, but I am concerned about whether the appropriate support will be available for people in the support group.

The amendment would simply ensure that the Bill lived up to the promises made by the Secretary of State. It would, first, make it a statutory obligation—not just a Government intention—for the work-related activity component to be available for members of the support group. It would clearly make participation voluntary, because the Committee has agreed that any sanctions or compulsions would be totally inappropriate for that group. However, to make the arrangement realistic, we must accept that the outcome of the work-related activity process for members of the support group may not be a full-time job. It could be a part-time job, or voluntary work. It could be going on a training course or involvement in community activities.

When we carefully observe this most vulnerable group, real concerns arise that the general tenor of the rest of the Bill could send conflicting signals. I shall just read a sentence from page 123 of the excellent book by the Child Poverty Action Group called“A Route out of Poverty?”

“We are concerned that the Government’s focus on the merits of paid work, which has dominated policy since 1997, makes people who are not in it feel worthless. Much more emphasis should be placed on the contribution and participation of disabled people, irrespective of their ability to access paid employment. Many disabled people work as volunteers or carers, or run service user groups, yet are deemed to be out of work because they are not being paid. The Green Paper with its focus on drawing people into employment may perpetuate entrenched stereotypes.”

If the Government are to deliver on their intentions for the support group, a variety of outcomes is essential for the pathways to work programme involving part-time work, voluntary work, community activities and education. Last week, the Minister said that he recognised that that could be the case for education, and that:

“Further education has played an enormous role, and will continue to do so, in supporting people from all sorts of backgrounds, particularly those with a disability and a fluctuating mental health condition.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A 17 October 2006; c. 51.]

I think the Minister understands the direction ofmy thinking on these issues, but I have a couple of concerns. The first is whether the pathways programme has the necessary resourcing to provide adequate support for people on the support component. Citizens Advice, for example, said that it has

“great concerns that the £360 million will not be sufficient to provide the same level of support, and the same range of opportunities, currently available to clients in Pathways areas.”

It makes that comment about everyone, whether they go into a work-related activity group or the support group. If there is a resource constraint for people in the work-related activity group, which is the less resource-intensive of the two groups, it will be doubly the case for those in the support group.

Finance may be a consideration because every Government must operate within financial constraints and if finance is the reason, I should be grateful if the Minister would come clean and say so. It is important when considering the support group to avoid false economies when it comes to cost. Yesterday, I was in Sheffield visiting an excellent organisation called Dimensions UK. I met the chief executive, David Wolverson, who told me an interesting story about one of his clients—I shall call him Dave. Dave has learning difficulties and has twice tried to live independently, but failed. He had to have people sleeping in with him overnight but during an 18-month period, with coaching from Dimensions UK, he was weaned off the necessity of having someone sleeping in with him overnight. I am sure that that process was expensive, but it was a big lifestyle change for Dave, who said, “I have no bloody staff here, so I can have a party.” It was a big change for him not having to have someone sleeping in with him, but it was also a bit lonely for him and he needed a lot of support. The crucial point is that the cost of having sleep-in staff is well in excess of £150 a week, but the cost of what he has now—an on-call system—is only £7 a week. Helping and supporting people to live independently results in a huge reduction in cost to taxpayers.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

That story is inspiring and the gentleman concerned is obviously inspirational. However, does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is practical and appropriate to allocate a sum of money to cover everyone who might be in a support group? Has he considered how that could be costed and has he also considered that there might be a better way in the voluntary and other sectors to support someone who is not yet ready even for a work-focused interview other than through a mechanistic approach under the Bill?

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

As ever, the hon. Lady makes an important point. I am not suggesting that the provisions under the support component of the Bill are the only solution or the only way forward for such people. I am concerned about simply putting a line in the explanatory notes saying that the work-related activity component will be very good, that we have seen how it works with the pathways programme and that anyone else with more severe disabilities can volunteer for it if they want. I am concerned that that does not give true access to people in that group. The point about disability is that if we want to move to equality for disabled people, we must be proactive. It is a question not simply of eliminating prejudice, as with racial discrimination, but of taking proactive steps that make equality a reality. There will not be no statutory right: the explanatory notes say that such provision is the Government’s intention. Saying that the most severely disabled people can volunteer to be part of the support group will not help them as much as they need to be helped.

I shall illustrate my point, because there is a particular issue about part-time work. For many of the most severely disabled people, the most realistic outcome of any effective programme is to go into part-time work. They may volunteer first, as a stepping-stone. If they can move into full-time work, it is likely that part-time work will be a vital stepping-stone.

Yesterday I met a cleaner with learning disabilities, but they will not be able to do a full-time cleaning job straight away, so they have started by doing a couple of days a week and seeing how it goes. The benefits system makes that very difficult, because the moment one gets a part-time job working mornings, for example, one risks losing one’s entire benefits package, which is scary. We are asking someone who is vulnerable anyway to take a huge risk. Add to that the fear that the job may not work out, and that they may not know about the linking rules, and we are making it difficult for them.

I am not arguing that part-time work has to be a valid outcome for all people who participate in pathways to work; I am asking whether the Government will consider making it a valid outcome of the programmes for people who go on to the support element. In their case, it might be the most realistic outcome and a stepping-stone to full-time work, too.

Last week I raised a concern that by giving members of the support group a higher level of benefit, which everyone present supports in principle, there may be a danger that people will not want to leave the support group, because moving into the work-related activity component could mean a reduction in their benefit. The Minister’s response was that

“we would say that the person could keep the higher rate of benefit so that there were no perverse incentives to stay in the support group: they can keep the higher rate of benefit without going through the conditionality.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 October 2006; c. 66.]

However, on page 8 of the regulations, a case study of “Sarah”, who is on the support component, says:

“Her condition gradually improves, and...she is assessed as not having limited capability for work-related activity. This means she moves into the work-related activity group which has the effect of a small reduction in her benefit.”

The regulations appear directly to contradict the Minister’s assurance that people will be able to move from the support element to the work-related activity element. I may have misunderstood them, but I should be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

With the amendment, I am saying it is important that, if we can, we use the Bill to give the same opportunities to people with severe disabilities, particularly people with learning disabilities, as we give everyone else. The paper, “Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century” talks about getting 30 per cent. of people with learning disabilities into the labour market. The figure is currently much lower. In that spirit, I hope that we can amend the Bill, so that we have legislation giving those most vulnerable people the same opportunity to take the next step forward in their life as we seek to create for those people with less severe disabilities.

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I shall make a brief speech this time rather than a long intervention. The comments of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey were interesting. Sheffield Dave seems to embody the purpose of the Bill. We should stop writing people off. We should stop using the list system—listing all the things that make one incapable of working—and look instead at what a person is capable of doing. Having someone front-ending the investment, so that Sheffield Dave can in the end sleep by himself and may one day take part in some kind of work-related activity, is exactly what we want to achieve. It is very important to keep that element of the Bill as it is.

The difference between the support group and the work-related activity group is also important. I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister may say in response, but one pay-off of the Bill for those who move to the support group is that they will get a much higher level of support and benefit. Everyone appreciates that those on benefit are poor. Fundamental to the Bill is the fact that we want to get people off benefit and into some kind of work or work-related activity, not only to make them better off financially but because it will enrich their life—just as Sheffield Dave’s life was enriched.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

My point is precisely as the hon. Lady says, but I am concerned that the Bill will not achieve that. Those people put into the support element will receive a higher level of benefit. Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the aspirations that she and I have for that most vulnerable group will not be met unless a wide range of outcomes are permitted, and not only full-time employment?

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on, but I return to the point that I made earlier. We are trying to provide an enormous range or menu of options, and not only through Jobcentre Plus. That is the gateway, but engaging all the volunteer and private sector organisations, as the hon. Gentleman saw in Sheffield, can help ensure that people’s capabilities, whatever they are able to do, are best identified and properly exploited. They can then go and do whatever it is that they are able to do and want to do. Once they are on that virtuous ladder, perhaps with support and training, and with the expertise accessed through the Jobcentre Plus gateway, they will be able to develop and engage more constructively in the labour market.

The bottom line is not to move every person now on incapacity benefit into work. That is a million miles away from what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. We want to give people support and the opportunity to move off benefits into some kind of work-related activity. It is important that we should use the phrase “work-related activity” rather than work; again, it is fundamental to our case. I look forward to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey withdrawing the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am delighted, as always, to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire; her comments, shared by those on all sides, about not writing anyone off were absolutely right. We had a political discussion earlier about the point, but whatever the merits of the support offered by this or previous Governments, too many people have been written off for too long. It is important that we change that culture for good.

I am not convinced by the amendment—it is not exactly how I would seek to make the change—but the hon. Member for South-West Surrey none the less raises an important point. He and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire made it clear—I think it needs to be made clear in the Bill—that assistance such as work-focused interviews should be available to any member of the support group who wants it. That is the point that has been made in this debate. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it is not made clear in the Bill, although it is made clear in his remarks, the explanatory notes and so on. The Bill could allow a less well disposed future Government, or this Government in one of their less well disposed frames of mind, to decide—

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

What interest would any Government, now or in the future, have in not enabling people in the support group to access work-related activities or anything else?

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I find it difficult enough to get myself into the frame of mind of other political parties as it is, without wishing to speculate as to their future motives. I shall not follow the line of argument down which the hon. Lady invites me.

I would like it to be made clear in the Bill that the support available to anyone on the work-related activity component will be available also to anyone on the support component who wishes to access it, free from the conditionality regime that would apply to the work-related activity group. For reasons that have been mentioned, it is critical that that support be available, and I know that the Government intend to make it available. I am not querying the Minister’s good intentions, but that needs to be made more explicit.

That need is important particularly for the reason articulated by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, which I have also mentioned to the Committee and probably will again: the amount of funding that has been allocated for the roll-out of pathways to work across the country. The Minister may feel a bit hamstrung, because he is doubtless engaged in debates with the Treasury on how much he should get for rolling out pathways in the comprehensive spending review. I share the concern expressed by Citizens Advice and others that the £360 million that has so far been allocated for the Bill will be insufficient even for dealing with the needs of new claimants, let alone those of people already on support who wish to access it in future. We do not even know whether all that money will be spent on the roll-out of pathways to work. In answering a question that I asked in the House, the Secretary of State could say only that the lion’s share—a term that I do not believe is defined by the Treasury—would be used for pathways to work.

I do not know where the statistic comes from, but surveys are often said to show that 1 million people who are currently on incapacity benefit wish to work. We do not know, and I would not wish to prejudge, how many of them will be entitled to the new support component when migration takes place. I would like to think that every one of those people who wished to access the help available under pathways to work would be able to do so straight away without any constraints on the availability of support. Will the Minister make clear the position on that matter?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. We have had a good debate, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey said, this amendment is important to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I wish to make two points and ask one question, all of which relate directly to the amendment.

We must refer to the evaluation by the Department for Work and Pensions of the experience of incapacity benefit personal advisers in pathways. The Department’s own research has found that some personal advisers have reported a worrying tension between the need to give tailored support to those who receive the support element and wish to volunteer for work-related activity and the desire to hit targets and get the “quick wins”. Those are the words in the Department’s report, Mr. Amess; you would not expect me to use pejorative language. The desire of an IBPA to help his client is logical and understandable, but at the same time he knows that he has targets to meet. The Department’s research reports in 2004 and 2005, each entitled “Incapacity Benefit Reforms—the Personal Adviser Role & Practices”, indicated a difference in how different personal advisers reacted to different clients. It was stated that there were variations

“in the extent to which IBPAs were willing to persist with...‘difficult’ customers.”

Sometimes they felt that they needed permission from their managers to spend extra time on what will be the support element segment of clients.

Amendment No. 227 argues for a regime where there is resourcing in respect of everyone in the support element who wishes to try work-related activity—my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned that issue. The burden of my argument also relates to a cultural shift on the part of all personal advisers. This will extend to any advisers who work in the private sector or in not-for-profit charitable sector organisations who might deliver the roll-out of pathways and the new regime. Someone in the support component element would be under no obligation, because in the test in clause 9 they have demonstrated that they are further away from work, but they might want to make an effort and volunteer for work-related activity, even though the legislation does not require them to do so. They must be looked at through the prism that they should be supported and resourced. They should not be treated, as some of the evidence in these reports suggests they are being, as being more difficult to help—I would not use the term “easy wins”—where people say, “We will support those who are nearer the world of work and are more work ready.” I hate to use a colourful word, but there cannot be any apartheid between the support element and those in the work-related activity component.

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I promise that this is my last intervention. I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the concept of the support group. It is not a passive parking place for people who are more severely disabled or unable to work. It is an active group that will still be encouraged to move into the work-related activity group.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have not misunderstood the concept; the entire burden of the amendment argues for her point. Those in the support group must be encouraged more than ever before under the pathways and previous regimes to have the opportunity to access the work-related activities, which are the right of those in the work-related activity component. They are not a right in the same way for those in the support component, because under the conditionality they are not required to engage in work-related activity. I hope that she accepts that the provisions suggest that although the support component contains those who wish to migrate to the work-related activity component, it is not obvious that that will be fully resourced because it is voluntary. People might not want to do that—[Interruption.]

The Minister from a sedentary position talks about resourcing. That is the burden of the argument made by Citizens Advice and many other outside organisations: the £360 million for the roll-out of pathways to 2008 might not be enough to cater fully for all those in the support group who want to migrate on to the work-related activity, which is more resource-intensive, as we all know.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

In response to the earlier intervention, no one is denying what the intention of the Bill is. Our concern is the practice, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. Does he agree that one of the particular causes of concern was the DWP’s own research in 2005 on personal advisers? The suggestion has been made that

“there is a danger that increasing the weight placed on early job entry targets in the future might lead them to focus on the ‘quick wins’ versus those who really benefit from the pilots.”

Are we not really arguing that we precisely do not want people in the support element of the component to end up being parked while the whole focus of people working to quite tight contracts is on getting people into jobs when that might not be an option?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am grateful for that intervention. We all agree here. It is a question of teasing out an understanding that the £360 million or perhaps even greater resources will be adequate to fund everyone in the support group who might want to volunteer for work-related activity, which, under the provision as drafted, they are under no obligation to do. An interesting question is how many will wish to volunteer for the work-related activity and whether that is resourced.

My final point relates to access to work. One of the many active labour market programmes that might be relevant to getting those in the support group to work-related activity and making it successful for them is access to work. This is not the place to have the debate about that very good programme, which is popular with those employers who know about it. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is responsible for that programme, understands what good value for money it represents in public spending terms. It is not just me saying that, but Citizens Advice, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and many others.

I have one question about access to work which bears on the amendment. It is my understanding that access-to-work funding is not available to those undertaking voluntary work. Voluntary work could be part of the work-related activity that support component customers might want to do. Therefore, those who wish to undertake such work-related activity seem to be at a disadvantage—access-to-work funding will not be available to them. I understand historically why that is the case, but if such funding is not available for those who want to go from the support component to work-related activity, can either Minister tell us whether there is anything commensurate to help them? Are there any pots of money and Government programmes that might meet the needs of people who wish to do voluntary activity, but who are not required to do it under the clause because they are in the support component? For them, an access to work-style programme may be particularly helpful.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. I am concerned about the amendment for a number of reasons. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly pointed out the fact that a cultural shift has taken place over a number of decades. To answer my hon. Friend the Memberfor North-East Derbyshire, there are different circumstances in which Governments may seek, for whatever reason, to use a group of unemployed people. During periods of high unemployment, low economic activity overall and general economic decline, it is not uncommon for Governments to use, to take a Marxist analysis, a reserve army of the work force. It is not an unfamiliar concept.

We have to look at how the cultural shift has come about and why it is important to revisit what we can do for people. We are in a different economic environment now and I hope that that will continue for many years. Nevertheless, circumstances change. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds describes some people in some departments, some of whom might work in Jobcentre Plus and some in the voluntary sector, whose attitudes and approaches to clients have had to change in those periods. We cannot take a single day and say that it demonstrates how all people operate with all clients, because it simply is not true. From that point and following new experiences, people do change their approach to clients. That is a rather slow but necessary process.

We must also take into account the attitude of the people who are being assessed, in whose interests we are trying to form the legislation. Opposition Members have moved some way from what was deemed to be the proper way to deal with people, and I welcome the way in which they now look at things, but we have to be realistic and set measures in the context of the real world and what real people do.

The inspirational argument about “Sheffield Dave”, who will for ever more be known by that name, illustrates a certain point about how people can develop, but using the amendment as a way to deal with Sheffield Dave is problematic. On the one hand, we can say that the current system is providing for Sheffield Dave, although perhaps not for people in all places: it might be that Sheffield is particularly fortunate, or that some facilities are available in metropolitan areas but not in rural areas. That is another matter to consider. How on earth do we make exactly what is available in Sheffield available in Slaithwaite, the village where I live? Whether that would be the best way to spend resources is an argument that we could properly have, but what concerns me more is whether Slaithwaite Dave’s experience of life is the same as Sheffield Dave’s, and whether some people, unlike Sheffield Dave, have a longer journey to travel.

In my experience, if the Bill says simply that a right could be imposed, which sounds like a cosy and supportive way of dealing with things, people will soon think that they have a duty. When structuring legislation, we have to be careful to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

Mr. Huntrose—

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I can see that the hon. Gentleman is very eager, so I shall give way.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

It seems to me that the hon. Lady is making an extremely eloquent argument in favour of the amendment, because I am saying precisely what she is saying: Sheffield Dave, Slaithwaite Dave and the myriad different people with varying disabilities need flexibility in the system. I do not think that I disagree with her, but I would put matters slightly differently. All those people want to make some progress towards being able to live independently, but everyone is starting at a different point in the journey, and it is important that the legislation should not foreclose options that might be vital stepping stones on the way to independent living, such as doing voluntary, community or part-time work. With the amendment, all that we seek to do is to make those possible outcomes of the pathway programme.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

But the amendment would also mechanise the process, and that would not necessarily be helpful because some people are not even in that place yet. The whole idea is that putting oneself forward for support and help is the right way. The crux of the matter is the concept of someone deciding that they have reached a point at which they can accept support and can venture out and do something else with their lives. The amendment is well intended, but would have unintended consequences.

We have talked about the fact that the attitudes of people at officer level in the department or working in the voluntary sector have changed over the years, but there have been others with stagnant attitudes who have had to be pushed on a little. So it is for people with disabilities. Sometimes, they have to overcome similar attitudes, and if the amendment were accepted certain issues would rear up in their minds. Over the decades, constituents have said to me, “I feel as if pressure is being put on me now to do something I otherwise wouldn’t choose to do.”

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s comments and she is making quite a profound point about people’s decision making, how they go about deciding whether to take part and at what point in their life they choose to avail themselves of whatever opportunities may be available. My point is that this is not about imposing a right that could easily be seen as an obligation on people. It is about making it clear that the obligation lies with the Government, who must ensure that, where someone makes the decision for themselves to come forward, the support available to the work-related activity group is also available to someone in the circumstances that the hon. Lady describes.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman at least understands my point; for that, many thanks. However, at many junctures in this debate, we have discussed how people make decisions and the information that they believe to be correct that is in fact incorrect. I think that this is one of those things that could be easily misunderstood and be detrimental to someone’s decision making.

Mr. Huntrose—

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

The hon. Gentleman is such a jack-in-the-box, how can I resist?

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to jump up. I just want to remind her that paragraph (b) in the amendment specifically says that persons failing to participate in the activities could not be penalised. I completely agree with her, but let us put it more bluntly than she has. There may be people with disabilities or severe disabilities who are simply not ready to start engaging in the process of moving towards the world of work. That is a huge change. Sheffield Dave is an example of someone for whom just living independently, let alone working independently, was a huge step to take. The hon. Lady is right about that. There are also people who it is envisaged would be on the support component and desperately keen to take the next step towards the world of work. All the amendment is designed to do is to make some options open to them that may not otherwise be.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Again, I completely understandthe hon. Gentleman’s honourable intention with the amendment, but it is misplaced on this occasion. We have had many discussions about the sorts of things that people think they are required to do when in fact they are not. Simply stating, as paragraph (b) does, that there is no intention to penalise will not necessarily be the message that goes to people. The message may well go to them that there would be a duty. I prefer that people, through the entire process, decide for themselves and volunteer for help, rather than feeling as if it is somehow being imposed on them. We need to invest a great deal in people and we need to ensure that we focus that investment correctly, appropriately and adequately, but the amendment would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman believes it would.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

In the time available before our interlude, I shall try to respond to the various points that have been made. I shall perhaps address at the start of our next sitting the more substantive points made by my hon. Friend and others.

The hon. Member for South-West Surrey said that this is one of the most important amendments that he has tabled in the proceedings thus far and perhaps will even be the most important in any of our 16 sittings in total. We can have a conversation in our next sitting about why he believes that, but I shall provide clarification now for him and therefore for others. It surprises us sometimes, but other people do read whatever is said here and therefore it is importantto correct the hon. Gentleman when he has unintentionally come to the wrong conclusion on case study 1 and Sarah. It is interesting that we have heard of case study Sarah, Sheffield Dave and Karl Marx all in one conversation.

In respect of case study 1, it is clear that the point is that Sarah’s condition gradually improves. It is not the fact that she volunteered but the fact that her condition improved that is relevant. That is why she would come out of the support group. If someone is in the support group and they volunteer, that does not prove to the Government that the decision to put them in the support group was wrong. It just shows that someone has a spark, a will, a determination, above what would be expected through the assessment, to try and to continue to try—

Standing Committee A

Clause 9

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We were in the middle of my response to the comments made by Opposition Members. I started by referring to Sarah in the case study in our paperwork and I shall continue from there.

For clarification, the significant point in case study 1 is that Sarah’s condition gradually improved.

I apologise for not greeting you at the start, Mr. Amess. It is great to see you in your place on this sunny afternoon, rather than bleak morning.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Committee that someone is given access to the support group because they have attained the 15 points required and met one of the 46 descriptors. Nevertheless, if that person sought to volunteer for work-focused interviews or work-related activity or, indeed, to enter the world of paid employment, if permitted of course, they would still be treated as a member of the support group in terms of their assessment. Only a medical assessment or a new personal capability assessment can end a person’s membership of the support group. In such circumstances, no member of a support group would be punished for undertaking work-focused interviews or work-related activity. It would not be the volunteering itself that would take someone out ofthe support group, but the new personal capability assessment or, as in Sarah’s case—the case study is very clear—the changing nature of the condition. Some conditions improve gradually over time.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He makes a very important point. Will he clarify what circumstances, in a case such as Sarah’s, or one in which someone has perhaps engaged successfully in work-related activity, would trigger a new personal capability assessment?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

That is difficult because unlike Sheffield Dave, case study Sarah is not a real person. However, a new personal capability assessment could be requested primarily by a personal adviser who might notice a change in the circumstances, for better or worse. That would be the main means for requesting and carrying out a new PCA.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) about reassessment, would the new PCA need to be triggered by the personal adviser or client, or could a carer take an interest and perhaps prompt the adviser? Would that be an acceptable trigger?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Our preferred option would be through the personal adviser. We have been clear about the opportunity for interaction between a carer and an adviser. For example, from 2008, customers seeking the employment and support allowance should be encouraged to take an advocate with them where sanctions might be involved or they have to prove good cause. There should be a close working relationship between an advocate or a family member, and the customer and the personal adviser. That sort of interaction could lead to the personal adviser requesting a new PCA.

May I turn to the points raised before lunch?

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I want to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey about what triggers a PCA. Is the Minister aware that a number of people think that a change in employment status can trigger an assessment of a person’s entitlement to the disability living allowance? That is a serious matter because it is a disincentive to people wanting to engage in employment. The Child Poverty Action Group argues that anecdotal evidence indicates that moving into employment can trigger a reassessment and removal of DLA, which can leave people worse off if they access work. Is the Minister aware of those concerns?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I have not had the opportunity to quote from the pamphlet that the hon. Gentleman has in his possession, but he acknowledges that it is anecdotal evidence.

We will structure the new employment and support allowance entitlement according to our policy intention and legal position. It is the personal capability assessment, not an anecdote or pamphlet, that will determine whether someone is in the support group and attracts the higher level of benefit, and we have discussed that in great detail. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and, through him, the authors of the pamphlet.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

This is very important because it gets to the nub of the question whether the structure of the benefits system is a big disincentive to people engaging with the world of work and because promoting such engagement is the point of the entire Bill. If the Minister does not want anecdotal evidence, will he accept actual evidence from Citizens Advice about voluntary work? Citizens Advice says that

“our evidence shows that sometimes when people undertake voluntary work, it is sometimes interpreted as indicating that they are capable of work and therefore not entitled to benefit.”

I am happy to supply the Minister with the evidence from Citizens Advice, but is he aware of those concerns and will he do anything to address them?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

There is only one person in the Committee who seems to be confused, and that is the hon. Gentleman, although I hope that that is accidental. The fact is—I cannot be any clearer than this—that the decision on whether a person will be in the support group will be based on the evidence from a medical assessment carried out by a medical expert. If they meet the 15 points, they are entitled to ESA; if they meet one of the 46 descriptors, they are in the support group—it is as clear as that. We could not be any clearer about the employment and support arrangements. Which part of that does the hon. Gentleman not understand?

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am grateful to the Minister, and I understand all of what he said. However, that was not the point that I was discussing; my point related to what triggers a PCA reassessment and to people’s concerns that it can be triggered by a change in employment status. I have given the Minister anecdotal evidence from the Child Poverty Action Group and Citizens Advice that the PCA can be triggered by a change in employment status. If so, it is a major disincentive to people engaging with the world of work.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I can do no better than repeat the response that I gave, although perhaps I can rearrange some of the words. It is the personal capability assessment that will determine whether someone is entitled to ESA and/or the support group, not a change in whether they are volunteering or undertaking work-focused interviews or work-related activity.

The hon. Gentleman might want to make a wider point about DLA, which, like other benefits, can be an in-work benefit, but we are talking about an entirely different benefit entitlement with an entirely different structure for an entirely different purpose. We have been very clear about that, but if he feels that there is genuine concern and confusion—other than in his own mind, from time to time—about a lack of clarity as regards ESA, about entitlement to the support group and about the fact that we will not punish anyone who, for whatever reason, is determined to undertake work-focused interviews or work-related activity when we have not requested it as a condition of entitlement to benefit, I will be happy to join him in finding ways to tackle the issue. As I said, however, we have been very clear with all the disability organisations and in the Bill, as well as in our briefings, draft regulations, meetings, speeches and our comments on Second Reading and in Committee. We have absolutely no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman—quite fairly, I am sure—is concerned about.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying my earlier point about what might trigger a new PCA. He made it clear that engaging in work-related activity, or even potentially getting back into work, does not, of itself, trigger a new PCA. He also made it clear that incapacity benefit personal advisers will potentially be in a position to trigger a new PCA. Will he therefore reassure the Committee that the points that he has just made about the circumstances that will or will not trigger a new PCA will be in the guidance to those advisers?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a reasonable request. As I said, the personal advisers will trigger the PCA. I should add that Jobcentre Plus decision makers will also have the power to request a new PCA. Through a carer or GP, the customer could additionally request a review of the outcome in terms of their entitlement to ESA or the support group.

As I said, if the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) genuinely feels that there is lack of clarity despite the clear way in which we are setting out our position today, I shall be happy to hear from him, either in writing or in some other way, how we can ensure that people outside the Committee understand our position. The medical assessment will entitle someone to ESA, not the fact that, for whatever reason, someone has taken up or volunteered for work-focused interviews or work-related activity. We are not taking in the Bill the power to do what the hon. Gentleman, perhaps reasonably, is concerned about in terms of conditionality and sanctioning. I hope that that is clear but if, despite our efforts, there is still concern about ESA rather than DLA—they are different benefits for different purposes—I shall be happy to correspond or converse with him.

Where I think there is lack of clarity—we know this from constituency cases—is in the linking rules. There is a genuine lack of understanding. We can see whyand there is a shared responsibility for that. The Government could do more, as I am sure could Members of Parliament in various ways. The voluntary sector could also do more although it already does fantastic work—Citizens Advice does great things. Perhaps we could all do more together on the linking rules. I am sure that private voluntary sector providers, pathways and Jobcentre Plus could do more, but, importantly, Jobcentre Plus will continue to carry out the first of the work-focused interviews so that all the entitlements are spelled out at that stage. That is part of the core script for what Jobcentre Plus will say to its customers at the first work-focused interview.

Specifically on money, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey consistently raises the issue for the right reasons and to keep us on our toes to ensure that we maintain our commitment to our funding model. I shall repeat what I have said on more than one occasion. The question does not change, nor does the answer. I am not suggesting that the question should change and he should accept that the answer will not change. The roll-out of pathways has the same funding model as the current pathways.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I did not intervene earlier because I missed some of the earlier exchanges and did not want to rehearse them because of my absence. The Minister referred to work-related interviews and indicated that there will be a formal script to rehearse the benefits and conditions under which the benefits are payable. My constituency experience and, I am sure, that of other hon. Members is that there are many cases of the Department’s argument being not on the facts of the case but on what was or was not alleged to have been said either on the telephone or at interview. In the interests of clarity and an audit trail, can he give attention to the need for personal advisers at work-focused interviews, particularly the crucial first one, to establish clearly and in writing if necessary some evidence of what is being said to customers so that there is not an argument afterwards about whether they were told the particular circumstances in which the benefit is available?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Gentleman characteristically makes a reasonable point. It is captured by the power in clause 13, which requires action plans to be a written record of the conversation at work-focused interviews. That record will be agreed between the customer and the adviser. However, in addition we intend to include inaccurate information being provided by the adviser or Jobcentre Plus under the good cause for not fulfilling conditionality. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on the specifics of clause 13 and the draft regulations, which we have provided. If he is not satisfied with that, we could further debate the matter later. The point is a fair one and the action plans are intended to be a written record of the work-focused interviews.

On the specifics of funding, the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for South-West Surrey asked whether it is enough. The funding model will be the same, and the funding will be structured to enable investment in people who wish to volunteer to go on to the support available through pathways to work, even if no conditionality is applied to them.

All that I say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is that we have set aside the £360 million for the proposals on welfare reform. He repeatedly asked whether it is enough, but what is his assessment of any potential funding gap, and how much does he think it amounts to? I shall happily give way to him if he has a specific figure. I say the same to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey. Does he have a specific figure for any funding gap in the pathways to work roll-out? I shall happily give way to him if he thinks that additional investment is needed.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Of course. First, for the record, the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for South-West Surrey earlier raised that issue for good reason, and I am trying to ascertain whether they have made a scientific observation about a funding gap in the roll-out of pathways to work. I gave both hon. Gentlemen the opportunity to answer, but at the time, they were not ready. I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and then give the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and for South-West Surrey the opportunity to answer that question.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am most grateful to the Minister. The straightforward answer is that we have heard from the Government neither about the number of existing claimants—rather than new claimants who will claim after 2008 under the new allowance—who will be able to take advantage of the new regime and all its resources, nor about the number of people in the support component who might want the high-end support and resource-intensive advice and backing if they are to take advantage of the work-related activity component. How many of them will volunteer? What are the estimates?

If there is a headlong rush of people migrating from the support component to the work-related activity component, as we hope there will be, with all the condition-management resourcing that will apply, will that investment be enough? We have not heard enough from the Minister, because he assumes that the employment and support allowance will be available for new claimants only, and not for the other people whom I have just listed.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Mr. Amess, that deserves the awardfor the longest intervention thus far—with your indulgence, understandably. I shall give way to thehon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and then to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

We may wish to reflect on the issue during our debates about later clauses, because it is important and it pertains to the clauses on conditionality. I draw the Minister’s attention to estimates already published by various outside organisations, which are based on written answers that he and the Under-Secretary have given about the costs of pathways to work set against the amount of money available and the likely numbers of people who will benefit. Some assessments suggest that there will be a shortfall of some £200 million to £250 million when dealing with new claimants alone. If the Minister is looking for estimates, there are plenty in circulation. He says, “It is the same funding model,” which is fair enough. However, it requires more explanation. How is it calculated in terms of the numbers of on-flow? I could happily have this debate for a good deal longer.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I give way to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey again.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, I have received numerous representations from outside organisations on the funding model. The Government must ensure that their sums are right. Will the Minister assure us that the funding model will be the same, and that the funding per person for the people whom he expects to use the pathways to work programme will be the same, too?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I have enjoyed listening to the three hon. Gentlemen trying to avoid answering a question and avoid committing themselves to an additional penny of funding. We have said repeatedly—on Second Reading and in various parliamentary forums—that based on all the evidence of pathways to work thus far, we are absolutely satisfied that the necessary investment will be in place through the £360 million that we have set aside. If, over time, there is a change in the profile of those people who come on to ESA, we will have to consider what more we can do. All that I am saying to Opposition Members, three of whom have made this point from the Front Bench on behalf of their parties, is if they share the belief that not enough funding is in place, what additional funding would they commit to? They must answer that question not as Back Benchers raising the concerns of other organisations, but on behalf of their parties. They have positions of responsibility. I am trying to get a sense of the additional funding that they would like to be put in place.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

One of the Opposition’s duties is to hold the Government to account, so will the Minister answer my previous question? I asked him not whether the funding model was the same, but whether the funding per head of person who goes on to the pathways programme is the same in the roll-out as it was under the pilots.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

In the contracts with the private and voluntary sector the same funding model will be used in terms of the individual. We will ensure that the necessary investment is put in place. One of the things that we look at is the creativity of the private and voluntary sector. Can they do things differently and more effectively, using their experience and their flexibilities? Are we prescriptive about how much each and every instance and each and every outcome should attract? No, we are not. That is one of the reasons why we are involved in the private and voluntary sector in the way that we are.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Perhaps I can bring a fresh angle to this little discussion without reopening it and joining the Minister’s list. Our interest in this matter is, if the private sector is able to deliver a more cost-effective model—the Minister, fair-minded man as he is, is prepared to consider that it might be so—should the profit thereby generated be fed into additional or improved services or will it be pocketed by the contractor or the Minister and the Department in terms of a reduced funding requirement? I think the Minister will understand from the exchanges in the Committee that whatever the exact figure, there is a good deal of concern about the ability to operate this scheme. From what I saw of pathways, they are a resource-intensive activity—I am sure that he would concede that—but we need to ensure that we get the best possible value for money and that people, be they on one side or other of the equation, are properly covered for their requirements.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

That is another fair point, which I will come to in a couple of seconds.

My general concern on this matter—I say this without seeking to incur your wrath for being unnecessarily gentle with others, Mr. Amess—is that I do not enjoy listening to those who voted against every penny of the new investment now saying that they do not think it is enough. That is how I would put it gently. Others will reflect on that and come to their own judgment.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

No; I am going to make some progress.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is on to a fair point about contracts. When, as many of us do, we sit down with the private and voluntary sector providers they talk about their frustration about the way in which in the past some contracts—there is no need to be specific today—created perverse incentives. They achieved their outcomes eight months in and there was no financial reward to encourage them to continue with all their great work for the next four months. Because of the type of people that they are, some continue to provide services. In terms of contracts, it is important that we learn that lesson.

It is also important that as we increasingly devolve some of our welfare provision, we consider recycling the savings for further good work. Our city strategy, which we announced in July, involves 15 pathfinders across the United Kingdom. Two thirds of the people on benefit live in our big cities. I do not say that it is not an issue outside cities, but two thirds live in the cities so it is an additional challenge for those cities to come up with solutions that suit their purposes. The challenges in Glasgow are different from those in east London, which in turn are different from those in Birmingham or Newcastle. We are saying to the cities, “You work with us. You design a solution to the specific problems in your city. And let us see if we can’t further incentivise it.” If a city makes savings and succeeds in supporting people and giving them the chance to work, it should have the chance to retain some of the savings rather than the Treasury and ourselves seeking to claw it back. That is devolution and will ensure a sense of continued momentum. It is important to put that principle into the delivery on the ground.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I think that every member of the Committee would support the idea of recycling any savings into better support services. For the purposes of clarity, will the Minister tell the Committee what saving he expects to make in the roll-out of the pathways to work programme by using private and voluntary sector providers, compared with the cost of the pilot programme?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

We will be happy to do that when we negotiate the contracts. I do not think that it would be very helpful to do it in advance. I do not believe that everybody in the country listens to all the specific details of our conversations in Committee, but it would not be a good negotiating strategy to announce today our attempted savings through using the capacity of the private and voluntary sectors.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I shall give way one more time, and then I shall deal with the amendment.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he appreciates that part of the reason for these interventions is that outside bodies are concerned about the financing of the roll-out of the pathways to work programme. Can he confirm that he is not budgeting to make a saving by using private and voluntary sector providers, although if he can make one he will, and that as things stand the cost allocated per head for those using the pathways programme will be the same in the roll-out as on the pilot programme?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I seek to be entirely direct with the hon. Gentleman. The targets that we have set are not on funding, savings or efficiency. They are on achieving a net reduction of 1 million in the number of people on IB/ESA over a decade. We have not even set a target for the number of people in the support group, and we are not going to do so as it would create all sorts of unintended incentives in the system. The point is not to assess how much we will save.

We intend to use the private and voluntary sectors because we admire their flexibility, expertise and connections and the relationship of trust that they have in many instances. With the best will in the world, the Government do not have that, regardless of which party is in power. It is important for us to plan for personal advisers to have a relationship of trust with people and support them to get closer to the labour market. Having said that, in carrying out a series of other important priority matters for us the staff of Jobcentre Plus and the personal advisers working under the new deal and other avenues have done a fantastic job, and are recognised throughout the world as having done so.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I think that most Members of the House welcome the Bill and the concept therein of the employment and support allowance. Why does the Minister refuse to confirm that the amount per person will be the same as in pathways to work, which clearly had some benefit?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The hon. Member for South-West Surrey has already asked that question. We are not going to set a target per head. It will take as much as it takes to support someone to get closer to the labour market, based on the complicated experiences of the individual. We do not wish to have a public debate by saying that we intend to spend whatever amount of money on each customer. Contracts will be constructed around outcomes, but as a matter of public policy we will not say that somebody with one condition should attract a certain amount of funding, someone with another a different amount and someone with a combination of those conditions a third amount.

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

The hon. Member for Daventry will have seen the wide variety of support given in the pathways to work area in Derbyshire. Even today there is not a fixed amount per head for those who are being helped. That intervention is intended to help Opposition Members.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

My hon. Friend is right that there isan average, but that is different, from a point of conception, from saying how much. [Hon. Members: “What about the average?”] On the average, additional costs will be involved in helping many people to get closer to the labour market, but I am not going to hazard a guess today as to what they might be and I am not going to set a target. As I have said repeatedly, it will take as much as it takes to get someone closer to the labour market, based on their various experiences and conditions.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I think this is fundamental to whether the amendment would make a lot of sense, because if the funding is not there, any amendments will be pretty much irrelevant anyway. To return to the essential point, however, if an average amount per head is to be paid under the pathways to work scheme across the country—we recognise that the scheme has brought a lot of benefits—why is the Minister unable to commit to achieving that average across the country, or at least to ensuring that the funds per head will remain in the ESA scheme? Does he not have a commitment from the Chancellor perhaps?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Committee again—I think that this is his second stint, although we have had six sittings thus far, so it is just as well that we do not get paid per hour.

Mr. Ruffleyrose—

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

No. I will not give way.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I should just like to place it on the record that I am an employer who believes that, in whipping the Bill, we should have flexible working practices and a work-life balance. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has not appeared at every single sitting so far, but we will be seeing a lot more of him in the weeks to come.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We have got that on the record. Minister.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I wonder whether I could—

Danny Alexanderrose—

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Okay. One more.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before we conclude our discussion, I have a slightly different question. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to give averages, figures per head or all the things on which he has just been scrutinised. However, he says that it will take as much funding as it takes, so will he explain where the figure of £360 million came from in the first place? That figure has been attached to the funding for this welfare reform project for a long time. Was it plucked out of the air or based on some rational assessment of what might be needed?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The £360 million set out in the welfare reform Green Paper is an assessment of how much would be needed to carry out the IT investment and to put in place the support, the personal advisers, the work-focused interviews and the ESA. As I said, we will not publicly set an average or a goal as regards how much getting someone closer to the labour market is worth. If we did, Opposition Members would, quite fairly, say, “Why have you only set this amount? Isn’t it a disgrace that you have set a public financial figure based on each and every individual?”

I do not want to stray into your area of responsibilities, Mr. Amess, but I wonder whether I could be encouraged to come close to a conversation about the amendment before us, although perhaps I should first say a little more about the outcomes in terms of cost per individual or averages. Despite some disquiet in the room, we think that contracts that are not 100 per cent. outcomes based, but a 70:30 mix, are the right approach and will ensure that we do not have the quick-wins situation that was mentioned before our lunch break. A mix of 70 per cent. outcomes and 30 per cent. overheads and investment will enable people to access the welfare provision market in a way that a 100 per cent. outcomes structure would not.

Let me turn to the specifics of the amendment. As I said, we do not want to write anyone off and we will pick up on the best experience of pathways as a matter of public policy and delivery to ensure that that does not happen. However, we recognise that it would be unreasonable to require people with the most severe functional limitations to engage in mandatory work-related activity. As we know, such people will be placed in a support group and will not be required to take part in work-focused interviews as a condition of receiving the full amount of their employment and support allowance.

Clause 11(1) provides that the obligation to participate in work-focused interviews cannot apply to customers who are in the support group. We are not labelling those people as incapable, but as having limited capability for work-related activity at this time. We expect that many of their conditions might improve sufficiently to enable them to leave the support group at some point. As I made clear in the Committee’s second sitting, and as the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading, customers in the support group will be able to volunteer at any time for any appropriate support on offer, including work-focused interviews with a specialist personal adviser. Therefore, paragraph (a) of the amendment is unnecessary.

Support group members are not caught by the provisions in clause 11, so their benefit cannot be affected if they do not participate in any work-related activity, provided that they continue to comply with standard benefit rules such as those on permitted work. As there is no risk of support group customers being sanctioned if they do not participate in work-related activity, paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment are unnecessary.

However, I do agree with the entirely fair comments of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey about the journey back to work being taken in small steps by many people. For some, that will be about regaining confidence if it has been knocked, undermined or lost. For others it will be about refreshing skills—people who were employed in traditional industries who have been out of work for some time, for example, or people who worked in the world of IT, in which, increasingly, a person’s skills can become stale if they have been out of work for just six months. Volunteering and part-time work are also important steps along the journey back to economic activity.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am grateful to the Minister for finally getting around to addressing the substance of the amendment. I shall briefly address the two points that he has raised, and ask him to respond. First, he said that there is no need for paragraph (a) of the amendment, which would stipulate in primary legislation that people in the support group will be able to volunteer to take part in the packages. He says that the Secretary of State has given assurances on the Floor of the House, and that this issue is addressed in the notes to the Bill, but nowhere in the Bill does it say that people in the support group have the right to volunteer to take part in work-related activity. Does not he think it important that that right should appear somewhere in the Bill?

The Minister’s second point was that sanctions would not apply to people in the support group. We accept that that is as it should be, but that is not really the purpose of paragraph (c) of the amendment. It is to ensure that when the Department is arranging contracts with providers to help people to get closer to the labour market, it is accepted that for some people the objective should not be simply to place them in a full-time job. Some people in the support group may volunteer to participate in work-related activities, and for them, the best outcome of the programme might well be part-time, voluntary or community work, or education.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Importantly, we also have to ensure that the contracts are right, and we have had discussions on this with private and voluntary sector providers. First, we should try to ensure that as far as possible work is sustained rather than short term. Secondly, contracts should be structured to ensure that contractors do not simply, as a matter of operation, support those who are already nearest to the labour market, although I am sure that most of them do not wish to do that. We will make those two important distinctions in our contracts.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. Will he at least acknowledge that if, without prejudice to the level of resources that turnout to be necessary, there is a tightening of the situation—in the real world, this has happened with all Governments at different times—people in the support group will wish to fall back on his pledge that they will not be excluded and their support will not be rationed?

My second point is, in drawing up the structure of contracts for the private contractors who will take on the additional part of this work, while the Minister rightly expresses the need to have certain firm conditions, will he also make it clear that the contractors have an obligation to admit members of the support group to the services that they offer without prejudice to whether or not they are on the support group? They must offer the services to anyone within the allowance, not simply to those who are in its employment or work-related section.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Those are entirely fair points. The first of the hon. Gentleman’s two points is captured by clause 11(1)(b) on the basis of any sanctions. If someone is in the support group, we cannot impose anything on them on the basis of subsection (1)(b). That is included in the Bill.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I shall be brief, because I realise that the Minister wants to make progress. With respect, that is not a sufficient answer, because it simply says that such people will not lose the benefit. We are talking about a situation where they might lose the right to participate in the programme, which the Secretary of State has promised them.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

As the hon. Gentleman says, that is about the sanctions on benefit. I shall make some progress and comment on how we intend to ensure that the pathways-style support happens. He is also right about the contracts for the private and voluntary sector: they must be flexible enough to ensure that someone who is in the support group and who volunteers can have access to the pathways-style support. That would be done through the work-focused interviews, which will largely be provided by the private and voluntary sectors. He is right to raise that issue. We intend that it will be fed through into the contracts.

As hon. Members are aware—this relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, who may wish to reflect on this over time, perhaps in advance of Report in the Commons—the entitlement to access pathways-style support is enabled through section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. It gives the power to provide such support, and talks about

“assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities”.

That is the primary legislative source of the type of support that we are talking about. I understand that it was the source of the conditionality support through the new deal for disabled people, and is relied on in the extension of support in other benefit regimes and in some of the jobseeker’s allowance new deals.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is about setting out new powers to impose conditionality upon those for whom we think it is appropriate. The volunteering would be covered by the powers in section 2 of the 1973 Act. As he also knows, we are currently providing support through pathways to work for those who volunteer, even for those who are in the exempt category. That process will be carried over to ESA for the support group. He might want to reflect on specifics and the powers in the 1973 Act, but we derive the power to provide the support that we refer to as pathways roll-out from it.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I would indeed like to reflect on the last point that the Minister made. I am still concerned that there is no primary legislative right for people in the support group to apply for the package of support offered under the work-related activity programme. I am grateful to him for responding at some length both to the points that I made in my speech and to the interventions that were made. I am still very concerned that the Minister and the Government have not appreciated the full purpose of my amendment, which is to ensure that the end point of any programme offered is the possibility of steps towards full-time employment, and not just full-time employment itself.

I am concerned that the programmes, as currently designed in the pathways pilots, will tend to favour those on the work-related activity programme, for which people in the support element can volunteer, should they so choose, but that the programmes might not necessarily be designed for them. That is the substance of my concern. Will the Minister respond to that? If he does not, I am afraid that I shall press the amendment to a vote.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I shall respond briefly to that point and to some others.

Based on the tone in which the hon. Gentleman moved his amendment, I am not surprised that it might end with a Division. I am not sure that there is much that I can do or say to reassure him, given the way in which he introduced the amendment.

I have an additional concern about the way in which the amendment is structured—[Interruption.]

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I think that we should ignore the fire alarm and carry on until it gets serious.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I shall carry on until the room is empty.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Shouldn’t be too long now. [Interruption.]

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

As someone says from a sedentary position, that has nothing to do with the fire alarm.

New subsection (5)(a) of the amendment suggests that the Government should

“ensure a full programme of work focused interviews is offered to those in the support group who indicate a desire to take part in these aspects of the programme.”

Based on what he said at the outset, I suspect that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey will push the amendment to a vote, and I understand why he wishes to do so. However, I do not think that the Government should be compelled to provide full work-focused interview support to everyone in the support group who wants it regardless of circumstance. As the Government and also progressives, that is not where we want to be.

We are talking about folk with often serious and fluctuating mental health conditions and the Government being responsible, under primary legislation, for the provision of work-focused interviews and work-related activity for everyone, regardless of their condition and of whether that interview might be bad for their health, counterproductive to their condition or add to the pressure that they are under.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

One moment; this is a serious point.

If the hon. Member for South-West Surrey seriously wants that to be a matter of public policy enshrined in primary legislation, I disagree with him very strongly.

We know from the draft regulations that automatic access to the support group is for those with a terminal illness. We have talked about that already. But it is there also for those who it is assessed on medical grounds might harm others, including Jobcentre Plus staff and personal advisers. If the hon. Gentleman seriously wishes that to be public policy, to enshrine it in primary legislation and to ensure that the Government have that absolute legal responsibility to everyone, regardless of their circumstances, condition and health, as well as the possible impact on those working with them and providing that support, frankly, I think that he is doing a disservice to many of his other comments in Committee thus far.

I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends, but it is what his amendment would achieve. It undermines many of his well considered comments. On that basis, I encourage him to reflect on whether he wants to put such a provision in primary legislation as part of a supportive mechanism to get people back into the labour market. I do not think that that is what he intended. It is up to him to articulate that if that is indeed what he wants as a matter of public policy.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Before we conclude and before external events intervene, let me deal with the Minister’s two final points.

First, let me be absolutely clear that my amendment simply seeks to ensure that legislation reflects what the Secretary of State promised on the Floor of the House. That is all we are trying to do. We want to ensure that the Government are true to their word. I know that they want that and I have absolutely no doubt about their good intentions in that respect, but we want to ensure that the Bill commits them to doing what they say they want to do and nothing more.

The point that the Minister made about the amendment having the effect of requiring the Government to offer work-related activity to people who could be a danger to others is a good one, but that does not affect my support for it because I can simply table further amendments to ensure that it does not apply to those individuals. We are trying to ensure that the Bill reflects the commitments and promises that the Government made on a number of occasions.

The Minister’s second point is important and questioned whether we want a Bill that assumes that everyone, no matter what their disability, would want to move in the direction of work-related activity. I stress that the amendment would cover only those who volunteer to go in that direction. That is all we are seeking to do. We want to ensure that the important structure that the Government are putting in place in the Bill, which we welcome, gives as much hope to people who are further away from the labour market as to those who are nearer to it because we have real concerns that the existing structure might unintentionally disadvantage that group.

On that basis, I shall press the amendment to a vote.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Before we come to an expected debate on clause 9 stand part, I remind the Committee that we seem to have had an extremely wide-ranging debate on amendment No. 227 and I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Amess.

The Minister may not have agreed with the conclusion of the previous debate, but I congratulate Labour Members, as well as Opposition Members, on a lively and constructive debate. We shall return to it later.

I have only two questions; it will be a short stand part debate. I seek clarity about an issue that is not dealt with under the clause but which has been spoken of and which was prefigured in the Green Paper. It is the ad hoc review of existing claimants under the new regime. My remarks could have been made equally well under clause 8. The principle is the same.

The new PCA applies only to claimants of the new ESA. The Green Paper said that, for existing claimants of incapacity benefit, the Department was planning to complement its existing case review of existing stock with ad hoc case checks by a dedicated new team. The Green Paper stated:

“Where these checks produce doubt about the nature or extent of an individual's incapacity, a fresh PCA will be required.”

That would be a new assessment, should this part of the Bill become law. However, Mind said in evidence to the Select Committee report on pathways published this spring that such ad hoc reviews might induce fear and uncertainty among existing claimants; and that they might be unnecessary, as eligibility for benefit was already reviewed regularly.

My questions are these. First, what are the intentions of the Department as regards doing ad hoc reviews of existing claimants? Secondly, will the Minister tellus about the processes that govern case reviews, particularly the criteria to be used for selecting those existing claimants who will be the subject of ad hoc checks? It is a small, granular detail, but the theme for many of my hon. Friends and for Labour Members is that existing claimants should not have their interests overlooked. I know that the Minister would not want to overlook existing claimants’ rights, but although the issue was flagged up in the Green Paper, it did not make its way into the Bill. It would be useful to hear his thoughts.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I, too, will be brief because, although it was a little ill-tempered at times, in our previous debate we managed to bring out several important points. It was a useful discussion.

I wish to raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. First, I would welcome a little more clarification on the process by which people can move from the work-related activity component into the support component. I seek clarification on how and when it might take place, particularly for those who have a condition that might fluctuate, or whose ability to undertake work-related activities might be affected by other factors such as caring responsibilities—a problem that has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Secondly, I would be interested to know a little more about the way in which the 46 descriptors were arrived at. I have received representations from organisations speaking for those with severe mental illness who say that they were not consulted as much on their limited capability for work-related activity assessment as they were consulted—thoroughly—on their limited capability for work. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions on one or two specific categories, and whether he envisages them automatically being involved in the support component? For instance, questions have been raised about people who are sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, whether in hospital or in the community, under guardianship orders or under the proposed new supervised community treatment. Does he envisage that those people would automatically be in the support group? Would they have to go through the assessment? How would they be treated?

It has been put to me that people who are so ill that they have to be treated without their consent for their own safety are not in a position to undertake work-related activity. For example, people subject to residential orders will not be able to leave hospital. There are a number of points on which the Minister could usefully flesh out the Government’s position.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

The House of Commons never fails to surprise me. In 10 years here, that is the first time I have known an amendment to be moved in Committee after those who tabled it had said that they did not support it in full, and all in the middle of a fire alarm. That was a novel experience.

I shall pick up the points that have been raised. [Interruption.]

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The fire alarm sounds only when the Minister speaks.

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

That is because I speak so much.

With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, we had a wide-ranging debate on a narrow amendment, so I shall be brief. On the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, someone in the work-related activity group could move into the support group if they or their personal adviser or carer requested a revised PCA. Within that issue is the matter of how we should support people with degenerative disease, and in my experience there will come a point where such people will be assessed as suitable for the support group. Whether somebody would remain in the support group if they were assessed before being sectioned under the Mental Health Act will depend to begin with on what the medical expert said in the initial PCA. When they are sectioned, a carer, personal adviser or anyone else involved in the process will be able to request a new PCA. Conditionality, such as work-focused interviews and work-related activity, would be suspended. That would clearly be well within the boundary of good cause. We have set out in the draft regulations and the notes for the Committee where we intend to set the bar for good cause, and being sectioned under the Mental Health Act is way beyond what we anticipate to be good cause.

I add parenthetically—I move from gently to parenthetically—that if Opposition Members had been successful and amendment No. 227 had been accepted we would have had a legal responsibility to undertake work-focused interviews and provide work-related activity if a person sectioned under the Mental Health Act had wanted them and volunteered for them. I add my sense of relief that the Committee, in its wisdom, did not support that amendment.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

Would the Minister have supported the amendment had that exclusion been made?

Jim Murphy (Labour, East Renfrewshire)

I have already explained that there is no need for the amendment because of the Employment and Training Act 1973—that is reason No. 1. Reason No. 2 is that it would have moved us in the wrong direction in finding the appropriate way to support people with mental illnesses and fluctuating conditions. There were many reasons not to support the amendment.

I have been encouraged to digress, Mr. Amess, but I deal now with how benefit checks will be carried out. We know from our constituency casework that when people are called for an interview on benefit entitlement, they often think, “What’s this about? Why is this happening to me? Has someone told them something? What does this mean for me?” There is a sense of worry in many instances, as we all know from the people who come to talk to us at our surgeries and to whom we talk in our constituencies. In terms of the current PCAs and benefit entitlement observations, I should like to see a system that is more regularised in that we would tell customers what would be expected within a set period of time. Perhaps at the point when they had applied for incapacity benefit, the norm would be that they would be called and they would have a conversation every year, every two years or whatever, so that there was a sense that this was part of the system. Particularly for those with mental health illnesses, we should not add that sense of worry that they must have done something wrong or that they were no longer entitled to the benefit and that is why the letter came through the post.

Incidentally, there is an important piece of work for us to do to ensure that our forms and letters are much more customer-friendly, particularly as we roll out ESA. One of the things I have been doing in recent weeks, and will continue to do, is sitting with those who have a recent and current experience of a mental health illness and discussing how they think we should restructure some of our communications. It is not something we issue press releases about or issue the names of participants, but it is important to get this redesign for ESA right. Listening to people who have experienced frustration with the current process is important.

As for continued entitlement to the ESA system, if there is a change in condition that is the point at which a new assessment would take place about whether someone was still entitled to ESA at work-related activity level or at support group level. We will learn from best practice how often that should be. One of the lessons that we should take from incapacity benefit is the one I mentioned earlier, which is that we should seek to ensure that those with an experience of mental health know that this is an accepted part of the process. It is not because they have done something wrong and it is not because someone somewhere inside this great government machine thinks that they are no longer entitled to it. It is just a continuing part of keeping in close contact with the customer. It is part of work-focused interviews. It is part of the personal adviser arrangements; and it is part of continuing to ensure that we take account of changing medical circumstances that a customer may experience. We are in the realm of comment rather than specific response here. We are trying to build best experience into the new system.

Clause 10

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 10, page 8, line 1, leave out from ‘allowance’ to end of line 2.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 28, in clause 10, page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (5).

No. 32, in clause 11, page 9, line 21, leave out from ‘allowance’ to end of line 22.

No. 34, in clause 11, page 10, line 17, leave out subsection (5).

No. 36, in clause 12, page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (5).

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

It is good news that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will be responding to these amendments. I mean no disrespect to the other Minister; it is nice to have two of them here. I do not think, Mr. Amess, that a clause stand part debate is scheduled for this clause.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am content that there be a clause stand part debate, but I will see how the debate on the amendment proceeds.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I have one or two wider points to make about the nature of work-focused health-related assessments. Can the Minister confirm that those assessments are intended to be similar in some ways to the capability assessment and report that is currently undertaken in the pathways areas, in focusing very much on what people can do—identifying activities in which they can take part and specific health interventions that may help them to get themselves closer to the labour market and ready for work?

There has been some concern that the capability report currently used in the pathways areas is doing some work that is similar to what the personal capability assessment is designed to do, particularly under the revised programme that has been introduced.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

On the capability report in pathways, which has been used as a model—certainly that was the intention for the new assessment—was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was to discover that evaluation work done by the Department found, first, that the reports were sent rather late to personal advisers and, secondly, that the IB PAs thought that in many cases the reports were repetitive and included less than useful generic information? Does he join me in hoping that those problems have been designed out of pathways to work and that they will play no part in the new regime, which we hope will operate much better than the capability report?

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that intervention, as the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was somewhat surprised to read those frank comments in the evaluation but welcomed the fact that it included them. Personal advisers said that the quality and level of detail in the capability report was generic, standardised and repetitive, as he said, and some personal advisers said that they were of minimal use—that they did not serve any useful purpose above and beyond what the personal adviser was able to do through the work-focused interview process.

We do not yet have any draft regulations on work-focused health-related assessments, and the details of what is intended in the draft regulations and supporting material are pretty sketchy. Even inthe personal capability assessment report, the developments in respect of work-focused health-related assessments are the subject of six paragraphs. Given all that, it would be useful if the Minister set out in much greater detail than in those documents the natureand purpose of the work-focused health-related assessments, and how the Department has learned the lessons of the pathways evaluation and will ensure that the exercises are useful.

As the assessments are intended, at least in part, to lay the foundations for the conditionality regime that will apply once the Bill is implemented, perhaps the Minister could also clarify when and under what conditions she expects that regulations will be introduced to make the work-focused health-related assessment compulsory. The Committee needs to understand that important point when dealing with the clause.

I draw the Committee’s attention to an exchange that I had with the Secretary of State on Second Readingin which he gave the impression—inadvertently, I believe—in response to an intervention I made on him that it was not the intention to have sanctions or conditionality for the work-focused health-related assessments. He wrote to me about it subsequently, and the letter states:

“It has always been our intention that participation in the work-focused health-related assessments would be mandatory and hence a sanction would be imposed for failure to participate.”

Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s thinking?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

This may assist the hon. Gentleman. The explanatory notes suggest that regulations will make provision for reducing the amount of ESA payable if a claimant fails without good cause to take part in an assessment. I believe that we will get to that later, perhaps on clause stand part, but it was obviously prefigured in the Government’s thinking.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that intervention. My purpose in raising the matter now is simply to ensure that the exchange that took place on Second Reading is clarified for the record.

We have had a full debate on the issue that is the focus of this group of amendments: that is, the nature of the support group and the extent to which people who are members of it will or will not be able to choose to participate in and benefit from the range of interventions that is proposed in the rolling out of pathways and in the clause.

I appreciate that we have had quite a full debate on this subject, but the purpose of the amendments is to invite the Minister to flesh out the way in which members of the support group will be able to access the support that might be available as a result of taking part in a work-focused health-related assessment. In our previous debate, we talked about work-focused interviews and work-related activity, but work-focused health-related assessments were not the focus of that discussion, and I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about how members of the support group will be able to access the support provided for in the clause. Although it is clear that conditionality will not apply to members of the support group in relation to work-focused health-related assessments, it is none the less important, in the light of the previous debate, that members of that group should also be able to access that support.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Given that this is a health-related assessment, is it at least in the back of the hon. Gentleman’s mind that one aspect that might be considered is the appropriateness of provision for access-to-work facilities? As the explanatory notes make clear, the purpose of the assessments is to

“provide additional information about the claimant's functional capacity”.

If the individual has a particular medical condition, which is relevant to their chances of returning to work whether or not they are in the support group, there might be an opportunity to see how that capacity can be supplemented.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I suspect that we will deal with it in more detail on the next group of amendments, so I do not want to steal his colleagues’ thunder. However, access-to-work funding is an important part of ensuring that any employment and support allowance claimant has the best chance of getting back into work. That is why we talked earlier about whether it was possible to have a core assessment that informed decisions about access-to-work entitlements. People could then have those entitlements almost as soon as they had taken part in the assessment, rather than having to wait to get a job offer before seeing what access-to-work funding was available. With that, I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s response to this group of amendments.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I do not propose to tax you, Mr. Amess, or the Committee for long, because we discussed many of the arguments in the very generous time that you allowed us on the previous amendment. The basis of my party’s support for the amendment is the same as that for our support of the earlier amendment: we want to ensure that the new packages are as available to the members of the support group as they are to members of the work-related activity group. Access to the work-focused health-related assessment is obviously crucial to that.

Will the Under-Secretary clarify a point regarding the work-focused, health-related assessment? As I understand it, the assessment will be a positive interview and will focus on a customer’s capability—on what they might be able to do in the employment market. In so far as it is undertaken for people who are part of the support package, however, will it also look at any part-time, voluntary and community work and any full-time and part-time courses that they might be able to undertake? People might be able to undertake those activities as a stepping stone towards full-time employment or as a goal in themselves, if that is their or their advisers’ realistic assessment of what is appropriate.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I am delighted to be under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess.

By way of introduction, let me say that I was fascinated by the previous debate on clause 9 and by some of the comments that were made, not least because, under the previous Conservative Government, I used to manage employment schemes for the most disadvantaged of people. The debate was an interesting exchange of views, because money was an object then and unit costs were a difficulty, so I want to congratulate Her Majesty’s official Opposition on travelling such a long way from the days of the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Huntrose—

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I shall give way in a moment.

Back then, people such as myself in the voluntary sector had no room for negotiation over unit costs, even over those people who were furthest from the labour market and most disadvantaged. I do not want to reopen the debate, but I thought it an interesting observation by way of introduction.

Mr. Huntrose—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I was very lax in my chairmanship of the previous amendment, so I should ask the hon. Gentleman to be careful not to reopen the debate.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

With that stricture, I shall just say that the Under-Secretary was generous in congratulating Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition on their position on this debate. I repay those congratulations by congratulating her Government on understanding the importance of a strong, stable and growing economy as the foundation for all the support that we are able to give to these important programmes.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I shall not rise to the bait, except to say that the Labour party always understood the importance of a strong and stable economy. We understood also that all people should share in the benefits of a strong and stable economy, which was not always the philosophy of the Conservative party.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, I fear that we may be trying the patience of Mr. Amess.

Mr. Boswellrose—

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

All right then, since the hon. Gentleman is nice.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I promise that I shall not abuse this opportunity. I simply want to ask the Under-Secretary one question, because I was puzzled and slightly alarmed by what she said. I inferred from her remarks that the Government’s position is that money is no object, because she seemed to congratulate the Opposition on having got us to that position—an argument that I do not necessarily concede. If only for the reassurance of her colleagues, will she confirm that she does not regard the Government’s position as one in which money is no object?

Mrs. McGuirerose—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. Before the Under-Secretary replies and no matter how nice the hon. Gentleman is, I ask her to proceed.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Thank you, Mr. Amess, for that little indulgence late on a Tuesday afternoon.

I turn to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I admit to being a little confused about his contribution tothe debate. I do not know what he thought his amendments would do, but I fear that their consequences would be greater than he describes.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

It is clear what the amendments would do. They would delete references to the support group in several clauses. The purpose of the amendments is to draw out from the Under-Secretary how members of the support group will in practice access support under the terms not only of the clause before us, but others. I made it clear that the amendments are probing. To some extent, my questions were answered in the previous debate, but that debate did not touch on support group members’ access to the work-focused health-related assessments in any great detail. Can the Under-Secretary provide further information on that?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

First, in case I do the hon. Gentleman a disservice in what I am about to say, may I confirm that he and his party support the inclusion of a support group within the new benefits system?

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Having known the Under-Secretary for a little while now, I am sure that she would not seek to do me a disservice in any of her remarks. Given the structure of the benefit, the inclusion of the support group makes sense. As I said in a previous Committee sitting—I do not want to try your patience by going on for too long, Mr. Amess—I strongly believe that a more constructive reform of the benefits system would be a move towards a single working age benefit, with which support for the extra costs of disability were met through benefits such as the disability living allowance, which are payable irrespective of whether someone is in work. However, the purpose of these amendments is to probe the Government’s intentions on the making available to members of the support group the support in this clause and others.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I am not much clearer at the end of that contribution than I was at the beginning, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman through some of the issues that he has raised. First, I confirm that the letter that he received from the Secretary of State states the position. I understand that it clarified a comment that the Secretary of State made on Second Reading, and that he was anxious to ensure that the correct position was relayed to the hon. Gentleman.

Secondly, I shall deal with work-focused health-related assessments. I appreciate that we are attempting to bring about a significant change in the way in which the reformed PCA process will deliver for people on the new benefit. I hope that I can give some comfort to colleagues here, and organisations outside Parliament, when I say that we want the new PCA process to underpin the approach of the new welfare reform programme. I think that we can all agree that, to a lesser or greater extent, people were often left to their own devices with very little or no intervention. The new process will move that work-focused health-related assessment on to being a far more supportive and focused tool with which to assist people to get back to work.

The hon. Member for Daventry said that the WFHRA—one of these days we will come up with shorter titles for some of these things—was very much about looking at some of the health-related interventions that might be of assistance to individual claimants when they are on the benefit. It will also allow us the opportunity to identify at a fairly early stage some of the adaptations that might be necessary to support a person going back to work, or often into work for the first time.

We have talked about medical and social models, but the reformed PCA underpins the fact that for many disabled people and people with limiting conditions, solutions regarding physical barriers or adaptations that have not been made, which they perhaps did not think could be made, would allow them to go back to work. It is about building some of those decisions and attitudes into the process pretty early on, because it is important that when people are work-ready, they know what adaptations are necessary, and, more important, that the employer or prospective employer, organisation or company knows exactly what is necessary.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I think that the Under-Secretary will accept that I do not seek to pick a quarrel with her on that matter. I am pleased by what she just said in response to my comments. Does she agree that that might well include some appreciation of whether the individual involved has access to public or private transport? Otherwise, people simply cannot get past first base, particularly, although not exclusively, in rural areas.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Although that consideration would not necessarily be part of the work-focused health-related assessment, it will be very much part of the assessment and the support that will be given by the adviser further on in the process.

I shall deal with one or two other issues that have been raised in this short debate. Although I cannot remember who asked about regulations that have not yet been published—it might have been the hon. Member for South-West Surrey—we hope to have those ready for the Lords Committee stage, so we are obviously working on them now.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the capability report and discussed the issue with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The capability report has been an important advance in how the assessments are made. However, the new report will build on the capability report and, as I have indicated in relation to the assessment, provide additional information, such as how people will be able to overcome some of the barriers to work and the situations to which the hon. Member for Daventry alluded. We understand that, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, there may be some issues of process in the transfer of information. That is why we piloted pathways, rather than going into them hell for leather.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised the issue of support group access to the work-focused health-related assessment. A person who has been assessed to go into the support group can ask for the work-focused health-related assessment at the end of that first assessment. That will be undertaken by a different person, but those concerned can ask to move to that additional part of the process if that is what they so wish.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that clarification, which is helpful in two ways: first, in clarifying that members of the support group will have access, which is very positive. Secondly, the Under-Secretary said that the assessment would be carried out by a different person. Can she clarify whether that will be the case for all ESA recipients who are invited to take part in their work-focused health-related assessment, at the end of their limited capability for work assessment and limited capability for work-related activity assessment? Will the same person or different persons be involved?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Obviously, we are learning from experience about how best to connect all those elements of the process. There are three elements to a single process. Some of that assessment may be carried out by other professionals or those with some experience—not only on the medical side, but on the occupational health side. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort.

The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have probed certain issues of detail, but I would obviously ask him to withdraw the amendment, which would, as I hope he appreciates—and as he in fact realised—put those people who had gone into the support group into a mandatory position for all the other elements of the employment and support allowance.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s response. She has raised a number of issues that I might wish to probe further in later amendments. However, having probed the matters that I was concerned about, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I beg to move amendment No. 229, in clause 10, page 8, line 3, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 10, page 8, line 8, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 231, in clause 10, page 8, line 11, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 232, in clause 10, page 8, line 18, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 233, in clause 10, page 8, line 40, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 234, in clause 10, page 8, line 45, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 235, in clause 10, page 9, line 2, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

No. 236, in clause 10, page 9, line 5, leave out ‘health-related’ and insert ‘health and disability-related’.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Given the Committee’s desire to make progress, we do not need to have a huge debate on this set of amendments.

There is a question over the wording in the Bill; I think that the Government have inadvertently made a mistake. The amendments deal with clause 10 in which references are made to “health-related” assessments. We would like that wording to be changed to “health and disability-related” assessments. The Committee will understand the important difference between a health condition and a disability, and it is clear that the work-focused health-related assessment, as described in clause 10, is meant to focus on the work people can do despite an adverse health condition or a disability.

The purpose of the amendments therefore is to ensure that we understand that many conditions that can limit a person’s capability for work are not health conditions, but disabilities such as learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, blindness, deafness and so on. We want to make it clear in the amendments that the work-focused health-related assessment will cover disabilities and not just health conditions and ensure that the wording of the Bill makes it clear that, just as we said in discussions on earlier clauses, it is vital for personal advisers and people conducting the PCAs to understand the difference between a health condition and a disability. It is important therefore that the wording of the Bill makes it clear that we as legislators understand that important difference.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

These amendments are helpful in making clear the extent and scope of what is described as the work-focused health-related assessment. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the range of disabilities that might not be captured at the moment. I took it from the Under-Secretary’s earlier comments on access to work—perhaps she will confirm this—that the Government intend the assessment to consider some of the disability-related issues that have been described, not least because, as I understood from her previous response, that process could lead to a recommendation for reasonable adjustments that might cause the person to be subject to access-to-work funding and therefore assist them with returning to work.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that whereas my hon. Friend made it clear that not all disabilities are health related, it might be that the Government are arguing that limited capability for work—the clause 8 test—automatically constitutes a disability? That might be how they are approaching the matter.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful for that intervention, and I shall pass that on to the Under-Secretary. I am not sure that it is for me to interpret the Government’s intentions, but that was an important point that she might like to clarify.

If the work-focused health-related assessment is intended to have the wider scope described in this debate, the Government, without wishing to make the assessment’s title even longer, should think about whether their language is appropriate. As the Under-Secretary knows, language is important in many aspects of this debate. She might wish to think about whether the name of that assessment is correct and bring forward Government amendments to change it.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I echo what the hon. Gentleman said; language, especially when it comes to learning difficulties and mental health, is incredibly important. The stigma generated by the incorrect use of language is unwelcome. On that point, there seems to be an opportunity to modify the language marginally so that certain types of stigma do not continue inadvertently and unnecessarily.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I agree with all Committee members’ that language is important. That is why “health”—not “health and disability”—is mentioned in the clause. Although, superficially, the amendments appear to be minimal in their effect, they could widen the scope of the assessments in a way that the Government do not think would be helpful. To some extent, the hon. Member for Daventry mentioned that in passing in his last contribution and he highlighted it in discussion on the earlier group of amendments.

The assessment is deliberately designed to focus on the support that people will need to overcome the impact on their mind and body caused by health conditions. It is not necessarily about the disability, but about the health-related barriers that prevent an individual from moving into work. The hon. Gentleman mentioned those with learning disabilities. That is a good example. Earlier today, he highlighted the fact that often people assume that individuals with learning disabilities cannot suffer from other health-related conditions. We are trying to be specific about such matters in this part of the Bill. It is not aboutnot recognising the difference between health and disability; it is about saying that, in some circumstances, health-related issues and not matters relating to a person’s disability can be involved.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am not sure that I understand what the Under-Secretary is saying. We are not saying that this measure should not relate to a health assessment, but that it should just relate to a health or a disability-related assessment.

Let me give the Under-Secretary a practical example. If someone in a wheelchair, who therefore has significant mobility problems, wants to engage with the labour market, that is not a health issue; they are in a wheelchair with a long-term if not a permanent condition. Clearly, some types of job will be suitable for them—for example, answering the phone on reception or working in an office—and other jobs, such as cleaning, will not be suitable. I understood that the purpose of the work-focused health-related assessment was to help a person understand what jobs and what part of the labour market they might be able to engage with. Surely, taking into account the disability of someone in a wheelchair is an extremely important part of the assessment.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

It is an important part of the process for that individual, but although the hon. Gentleman has given the Committee a good example to illustrate our point, I am not sure whether there is necessarily in all circumstances a health-related issue for a disabled person. The disadvantages and barriers that he has rightly highlighted can be dealt with in differentparts of the process. However, it is not necessarily appropriate for that to be considered within the health-related assessment part of the process.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I am grateful to the Minister, but that is exactly my point. As I understand it, there is no other part of the process where a person’s disability—the fact that they have mobility problems—will be taken into account with respect to how best to help them engage in the labour market. It is precisely their disability that needs to be taken into account if the work-focused health-related assessment process is to do its job.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.