Welfare Reform Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 February 2009.

Clause 1

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘circumstances’, insert

‘other than when a claimant is responsible for a child of school age’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 65, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘circumstances’, insert

‘, and where claimants have guaranteed and predictable access to good quality, affordable and flexible childcare which meets the needs of the parents and the child or children in the claimants’ household,’.

Amendment 62, in clause 3, page 10, line 17, at end insert—

‘(8) The prescribed description of person under subsection (4)(c) above shall include any person with dependent children who has claimed benefit in the previous 12 months following an incident of domestic violence provided that the claimant is able to produce such evidence as may be required by the Secretary of State to establish that the relationship was caused to permanently break down before the end of that period as a result of domestic violence, as under United Kingdom Immigration Rule 289A.’.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I shall particularly address amendments 40 and 65. The Government have signalled their intention to introduce “work for your benefit” schemes, although I prefer to call the schemes Workfare, because I think that that better describes the Government’s intention. Liberal Democrat Members have considerable concerns about some of the proposed changes, and amendment 40 addresses parents with school-age children.

I make it clear that I have no problem with parents, or single parents in particular, working. My mother brought me and my two sisters up as a single parent, and I have no doubt that there are many other people in the same position. However, we are talking about working for benefit, and a change in Government policy to cover children of school age.

Under the proposals, from October 2010, single parents with children aged seven or over will be required to claim jobseeker’s allowance. After 12 months, they will be transferred to a private provider under flexible new deal provisions and, after 24 months, to work experience schemes. We will then have a situation in which single parents will be competing with jobseekers for the attention and support of flexible new deal providers, although there will be no additional incentives or resources to support that group.

Previous experience of asking private sector providers to deliver for single parents have shown that, without additional resources, they are unwilling to invest in this area. In what is usually described as “parking”, there are concerns that providers will take little action for the most vulnerable claimants, who will therefore be more likely to become eligible for the “work for your benefit” schemes.

The YWCA is concerned not only that this is a “work for your benefit” programme, but that it is also inappropriate for single parents and unlikely to lead to improved work outcomes. Single parents are likely to form a disproportionate number of the participants. We have gone from the Government talking about the idea in the Green Paper to a situation in which the proposal is going to be actively implemented.

Research from the Department for Work and Pensions itself suggests that there is little evidence—not just in this sector, but across others—that work for benefit schemes actually increase the likelihood of finding work. Such a scheme is least effective at getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high. I am sad to say that that is the case in many of our constituencies. It is also not effective for individuals with multiple barriers for work, and it can reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and failing to provide the skills and experience that employers value.

Despite all that evidence, the Government, in their Green Paper, preferred to rely on the following justification:

“The report points to evidence that full-time activity in such programmes leads to improved job outcomes: between a half and two-thirds of leavers found unsubsidised work at some point in the three years after leaving the Wisconsin programme. Australia's 'Work for the Dole' had a 7 per cent net increase in participants going into jobs compared to nonparticipants.”

Significantly, with reference to the Australian research, the Green Paper omitted a sentence that the research report included, in bold type:

“However, other research found that WfD was ineffective in helping participants find sustainable employment with only one-quarter in work three months after leaving the programme and 14 per cent employed in full-time jobs.”

It is seriously worrying that the DWP is prepared to consider work for benefit schemes without addressing some of the key problems that other programmes have encountered.

We must consider the current employment climate. At a time of rising unemployment, the Bill’s focus on conditionality and sanctions is inappropriate. We should be concentrating on protecting the jobs that already exist and strengthening the opportunities that are available for people to find work. Using the big stick might have been appropriate a few years ago, but not in the current economic climate. We are particularly concerned that rising unemployment will cause anxiety and fear—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I will not allow conversations to take place between Members in the room while an amendment is being moved.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Thank you, Mr. Hood.

At this time of increased anxiety, lone parents, disabled people and those facing the prospect of unemployment will be the hardest hit. We thus believe that excluding lone parents with children of school age from the programme, as proposed in amendment 40, would be appropriate.

Amendment 65 would ensure that before any programmes were produced, there would have to be evidence that there was guaranteed and predictable access to good-quality, affordable and flexible child care.

A woman who came to see me in my surgery a couple of weeks ago was getting a job which would leave her under the 16-hour rule, so she would not be entitled to receive the child tax credits that would have enabled her to pay for her child care. She told me that she would end up being only £5 a week better off. She has decided that she wants to work, but she is working those hours for an extra £5 a week. I would prefer the Government to amend the 16-hour rule so that parents can pay for flexible child care and to ensure that child care is provided in areas where there are shortages. Such steps would represent money better spent on helping people back into work.

The provisions in this part of the Bill are meaningless because they do not deal with some of the problems and barriers that many lone parents face when moving into work. I would prefer the Government to concentrate on addressing that, rather than using the stick without the carrot.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hood. I look forward to serving on the Committee with you.

I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for mentioning my amendment—hopefully my input will result in better child care for children throughout the country—and I thoroughly endorse what he said. Having said that, this is about a Scottish element to the Bill, and I want to ensure that adequate support is available.

I recognise that there is a need to get people into work, particularly at the current time, and I disagree with the premise of amendment 40 because this has to be about exchange, not something for nothing. However, we know about the difficulty in reaching our targets and the prospective child poverty Bill, so we need to make sure that children are at the forefront of our minds when we consider the effect of this Bill. We cannot put extra strain on parents by making them worse off through a system that is supposed to work in the other direction. Given the increasing obligations to be placed on unemployed parents, there is widespread concern about a lack of high-quality, flexible and affordable child care in Scotland. Amendment 65 would ensure that such child care was considered before strict conditions were placed on parents.

Work on the amendment has been carried out by the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform, which includes more than 40 organisations that work with people experiencing exclusion and poverty in Scotland. I thank it for its work and help. The amendment has already attracted media coverage north of the border, and I thank the media for publicising the need to look at the amendment. I also thank Citizens Advice Scotland for its help, not just with this amendment, but through the other work that it has done with me over the years.

This amendment would ensure that, unless a claimant had access to good, affordable child care, they would not be faced with the Catch-22 of deciding between benefits and making sure that their children were looked after. According to figures from One Parent Families Scotland, more than 50,000 children could be affected by the planned changes. We must remember that there is no legal entitlement to child care in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, and no subsidy for child care for two-year-olds in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales.

There are limited means for systematically monitoring Scottish provision, so it is difficult to get a clear picture of the situation. However, we do know that between 2006 and 2008, the number of child care centres and child minders in Scotland fell from 10,388 to 10,322. While the decrease might be small, it is none the less a decrease at a time when we were hoping to give better coverage for children north of the border.

Costs are the biggest hurdle to getting a job with an income to support a family, especially for single parents and couples with low incomes. It is concerning that figures from the Daycare Trust show that the cost of out-of-school child care in Scotland increased by 29 per cent. in the last 12 months, while the cost of a nursery place rose by around 12 per cent. Given the problems in the finance markets and the fact that inflation is coming down, these increases are greater than we would expect parents paying for child care to face.

The DWP’s impact assessment on the Bill, which was published in January, emphasised the importance of child care and recognised the risks of imposing obligations on parents. However, it stated that those were mitigated by the improvements in England and Wales as a result of the Childcare Act 2006, which places a duty on local authorities in those countries to secure sufficient child care for working parents. However, there is no such duty in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform recognised on Second Reading when he said:

“The measures are not, as billed, ‘Any job at any cost,’ regardless of whether there is child care provision or other elements. I take on board what many of my Scottish friends have said about...child care provision in some areas of Scotland, not least Glasgow.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 268.]

While that recognition is welcome, we need to ensure that the Bill takes account of child care availability so that they are not just warm words. I look to the Minister to address these concerns.

It should be noted that a precedent was set with regard to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, with regard to which Scotland was given nearly four years to put its house in order so that it could come in line with England and Wales. I am asking the Minister for something similar: for the Bill to give the Scottish Government and local authorities north of the border time to ensure that children in Scotland receive the same care and attention as those in the rest of the UK.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We look forward to receiving your guidance as we seek to subject the Bill to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the Government’s plans for “work for your benefit” were first mooted in their Green Paper of July 2008. It might assist the Committee if I say, by way of brief introduction, that in January 2008—six months before the Government produced this scheme—we published a Green Paper on the subject. We proposed a return-to-work programme, saying:

“Our intention is that anyone who has been through the new system without finding work and has claimed the allowance for longer than two out of the previous three years will be required to join a mandatory long-term community work scheme as a condition of continuing to receive benefit support.”

We do not resile one bit from that proposition, which we produced a little before the Government reached their position.

Given what the hon. Member for Rochdale said in general terms about the Liberal Democrats’ approach, I take it that they are opposed to the proposal in principle and that amendment 40 is not just a probing amendment to seek more details. It was not entirely clear whether that opposition in principle extended to all time or just the present economic circumstances. However, we must consider amendment 40 against that background.

It appears to me—I look forward to legal advice and analysis from those with perhaps greater expertise than me—that, under amendment 40, no parent with a child under 16 would be eligible for “work for your benefit”. The hon. Gentleman confined himself to talking about single parents, but the amendment would apply to any couple because it refers to responsibility for a child, not sole responsibility for a child, so it would appear to cover both members of any couple with a child under 16. Therefore, neither member of such a couple would be required to work under the provisions of “work for your benefit” after they had been out of work for two years and undertaken the flexible new deal programme for 12 months. We simply cannot agree with that.

We heard the hon. Gentleman’s case, but it is always possible to mix and match research on such a subject, and it appears that there is no academic consensus. He referred to the Australian scheme of working for benefit, which appears to attract at least a degree of political consensus. A telling feature of that scheme is that while it was introduced by the previous Australian Government, the incoming Australian Government, who are of a different political complexion, have chosen to keep the scheme in place. That tells us something about the way in which the scheme in seen in Australia.

As a general proposition, we believe that work is a good thing, and that children in families with at least one member in work do better than children in workless families. There is a great deal of evidence to support that. That is not only due to the higher income that work generates, but because the child grows up seeing somebody in the family in work. Anything that brings a family into the routine of work, that gets children into the habit of seeing at least one of their parents go out to work, that prevents long-term worklessness, and that helps people get back into work, is a good thing.

I heard the various complaints made by the hon. Member for Rochdale. However, one is tempted to ask what members of families in low-income work, or those of families in which both members have low-paid jobs, would make of the hon. Gentleman’s proposal that if two members of a couple are on benefits, neither should be in work. He did not indicate whether he would press amendment 40 to a Division—he has not yet heard the Minister’s response—but if he does so, we shall vote against it.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West made reasonable points in support of amendment 65, which relates to child care. He said that his points related to Scotland, but they are important in themselves and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them.

I also note that amendment 62 is in this group, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Rochdale discussed it. It relates to clause 3 and the entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance. Clause 3—as opposed to clause 1, which deals with the “work for your benefit” proposals—is concerned with the shift of claimants from income support to JSA. I have not yet heard the details of the amendment from the hon. Gentleman—I will wait to hear what the Minister says about it—but it raises a reasonable point about the serious subject of domestic violence. I anticipate that we will be told that the amendment would make little difference in practice. However, it is worth considering domestic violence in such circumstances.

I say once again that if the hon. Gentleman presses amendment 40 to a Division, we will oppose it, because we think that the amendment represents opposition to the scheme in principle.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I, too, look forward to working under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, and that of Mr. Amess.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Rochdale was offering a counsel of despair, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere implied. We are making legislation for the future, not for the immediate downturn. However, I would say that even in the period of economic downturn, there is more than sufficient evidence, research and academic work to suggest that it must be right to try to keep all individuals as close to the labour market as possible, if not to get them formally back into work. To suggest right at the start of our deliberations that it might be too difficult to help such individuals because of the current economic climate is an utter counsel of despair with which I do not agree at all. I do not think that such a suggestion is appropriate.

Notwithstanding other amendments that we will consider, the hon. Member for Rochdale did not set out an alternative, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere implied, and the proposal in the amendment would become worse than was suggested. As hon. Members will know, we have a policy on the stocks to raise the school leaving age under law to 18. The hon. Member for Rochdale is thus saying that no parent, of any description—single or plural—of a child up to the age of 18 would have to comply with the conditionality regime at all. That must be a nonsense in any circumstances, but it also makes a nonsense of the help and support that the state should provide parents, lone parents and couples in those circumstances. We have—this guides the entire Bill—a fundamental duty to keep as many people as we can as close to the labour market as possible, if not in it. If the Liberals wish to demur from that, it is entirely a matter for them, but it is a sorry day if that is really what they are suggesting.

This is not, I hasten to add, Workfare. Workfare, by definition—at its most crude—is a largely punitive program of work aimed at dissuading claimants from continuing their claim in the first place. To suggest, as other commentators have done—the hon. Gentleman is not original in this regard—that this is Workfare of the most punitive kind is not correct. “Work for your benefit” will consist of full-time work experience that is backed up by additional employment support designed to give the long-term unemployed the best chance of taking work in the open labour market. As far as I am aware, that compares with no proposal from the Liberal Democrats, which is a shame. We think it is absolutely right that, as the duration of a claim increases, claimants are expected to do more to help themselves back to work. There is nothing shameful or underhand about this. It is a proper balance of rights and responsibilities, and we would argue that that is in the interest of the individuals concerned.

We have said throughout—from the Green Paper onwards—that, given that this is not Workfare, we will not insist on, in any way, shape or form, lone parents taking any old job regardless of any significant barriers that may remain to securing employment. There are safeguards to prevent customers from being sanctioned if a lack of appropriate child care prevents them from participating in “work for your benefit”. It is important that parents who claim JSA understand their responsibility to make reasonable efforts to find appropriate, affordable child care, but we want to get to a personalised system. Each and every one of the assorted barriers that an individual might face will be taken into account when looking at their progression through the back-to-work programme. That addresses points raised in subsequent amendments.

I take cognisance of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West that things are not as they should be in Scotland. There is no UK-wide equivalent of the Childcare Act 2006, which puts a new duty on local authorities in England and Wales to secure, as far as is practical, sufficient child care to meet the needs of working parents. I might need to mull over my hon. Friend’s proposal in due course, and I ask him not to press it to a Division on the promise that, after reflection, I will come back to it on Report. As we see elsewhere in the Bill, when there is this interface between devolved matters and UK matters, we are trying to accommodate the devolved Administrations. I take much of what he said to heart and I promise to pursue the matter further.

On the substance of the amendment, we think that it has been drawn wrongly, with drafting technicalities that would render it rather too broad. I am assured by lawyers who know such things far better than I—I wake up every day happy that I am not a lawyer—that those who are not parents could conceivably object to going on to a conditionality regime because affordable and practicable child care did not exist for parents. The effect of the amendment could be far wider than anticipated if those without children were able to claim that they should not participate in “work for your benefit” because appropriate child care was not available. I know that that sounds daft, and I know that it is not the thrust of what my hon. Friend wants to achieve, but nonetheless I am assured that the effect could be that wide.

We take domestic violence very seriously but, again, amendment 62, although perhaps tabled with the right intentions, does not come anywhere near to achieving its aim. Let us be clear: immigration rule 289A—those rules and regulations are dear to my heart in some ways—is quite rightly about there being a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for people caught in circumstances of domestic violence that have led to the irrevocable breakdown of a relationship. That is thus an appropriate pathway into ILR. We would argue that once an individual has established indefinite leave to remain, it is right and proper for that individual to be afforded the same treatment as everybody else. That does not mean ignoring the domestic violence background, but that will be part of the personalised service under conditionality. Despite raising a very important issue, amendment 62 either does not achieve what it seeks to, or, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested, is irrelevant or superfluous, because the issue is already covered in the broader policy and the legislation.

To start as I mean to go on, we reject amendments 40 and 62. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West not to press amendment 65 to a Division on the grounds that it concerns an important issue that I shall consider in more detail, and on which I shall get back to the House on Report.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I accept that amendment 40 was badly drafted and that it should have referred to children of single parents. However, on amendment 62, which deals with the important matter of domestic violence, I do not believe that the Minister gave us an adequate explanation. Far too much of the Bill is left to further regulations, so I would like to press amendment 62 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 40.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 19, leave out paragraphs (e) and (f).

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 88, in clause 2, page 5, line 20, after ‘failure’, insert

‘, including demonstrating that the failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health problem,’.

Amendment 89, in clause 2, page 5, line 26, at end insert

‘which must include that person’s health at the time of their failure to comply.’.

Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 81, line 39, after ‘requirement’, insert

‘which must include the person’s health at the time of the failure to comply.’.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

We now come to amendment 3, which is designed to elicit more details from the Government. The relevant paragraphs concern good cause in relation to sanctions for failure to comply with regulations under the “work for your benefit” scheme.

We would like to hear more detail about that. Will the Minister provide some examples of the principles that animate that particular provision? Will he also give some practical examples of what might amount to good cause? As matters stand we are not seeking to oppose this, but we want more details; at the moment the Bill is fairly broad regarding the subject.

Amendment 88 is a Scottish nationalist amendment from the hon. Member for Glasgow, East. It covers an important point about whether fluctuating mental health problems should, in effect, amount to good cause of failure to comply with work-related activities. That would seem a reasonable point to consider. We will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how that would fit in with the Government’s ideas on good cause—one would imagine that they will have given that matter some thought already.

Amendment 89 prescribes a person’s general health as a matter to be taken into account in determining whether or not that person has good cause for failing to comply with requirements. Again, one imagines that the Government will have something to say about the issue in their view of good cause.

Amendment 77, which is tabled in the name of the Conservative party, makes the same point about general health amounting to good cause, but within the case of failure to comply with requirements where the claimant is dependent on drugs. That is a general subject to which we will return, but we would like to hear the Minister’s views at this stage as to whether in this case general health problems might amount to a good cause for failure to comply with requirements. Again, we simply want to elicit information from the Government on that; it is a reasonable point to consider.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Thank you, Mr. Hood, for your patience as I learn how these Committees work.

I refer, briefly, to amendments 88 and 89. We would like to see the issue of health clarified because the words “good cause” seem quite vague. Perhaps I should say, first, that I have reservations about the whole direction of the Bill; it seems that there are a lot of sticks and not very many carrots. The statement was made earlier that no one should get something for nothing; but when we are dealing with children and people with disabilities and poor health and so on, yes, we as a society have a duty to provide something for nothing.

We have a slight fear that the Bill has been geared toward England, and Scotland has been a bit of an afterthought, but I am reassured by the Minister’s earlier statements that he will look at the Scottish situation. I also confirm that I agree that work is a good thing, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, and that children who grow up in a family where work is part of the routine have a big advantage: it will help them move into work themselves. So we are positive about helping people get into work. But when it comes to the idea of a personalised system, which affects health and other issues as well, many Members across the House wonder whether Jobcentre Plus can really be as personal as the Minister hopes it can be. I would certainly hope it could be, but my experience of dealing with bureaucracies and bodies like Jobcentre Plus is that it is very difficult to personalise their services.

Sometimes there is an assumption that a person’s health, whether physical or mental, is constant. The reality is that the health of people with fluctuating health conditions does vary. I am interested to hear how the Minister thinks we might deal with that.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I want to raise a brief point on these amendments, and specifically to speak against amendment 3. My concern relates to people with learning disabilities, and I would like some reassurance from the Minister that regulations will specifically address how this new proposal will impact on such people. It is likely that there will be a number of people with learning disabilities on JSA—an increasing number are coming on to JSA—and they are likely to be people at the milder end of the spectrum. So I would like an assurance that regulations will address that and ensure that, in relation to these specific issues, people with learning disabilities will be taken into account. It is enormously important that they are given equal access to the opportunities that the Bill presents.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

The Minister might be able to help the Committee with this clause. We are dealing with a conditionality aspect—the withdrawal of benefit if a person does not comply. What we do not have in front of us are the detailed regulations that will be used to apply that conditionality. Mind, along with many other organisations, has concerns, which are reflected in these amendments, about how that conditionality might be applied.

In previous Bills that I have been involved with, the most recent of which became the Pensions Act 2008, the Minister gave an assurance during the Bills’ passage that those regulations would be made available as and when they were produced by the Department. That would address some of the real fears and concerns that Members have about people who have fluctuating mental illnesses that prevent them from attending an interview when they are summoned. If we could see from the regulations that there is scope for that to be taken account of, or that there is a mechanism that can be applied, I am sure that many Members would feel a lot happier.

Will the Minister therefore give us an assurance that we can see the regulations at the earliest possible opportunity? That would allay some of the quite reasonable fears about how this sanction would be applied.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

On the broader point about regulations, allegedly in this room or certainly close to it there is a rather thick—for which I apologise—compendium, as promised, of where there will be regulations or a regulation-making power throughout the Bill. Where possible, the compendium contains at least the outline of what those regulations will include. I do not doubt that it will find its way to a pile, either close to members of the Committee or otherwise, at some stage this morning. I apologise that it is tedious and very detailed, but the Committee will know that it is one of those areas of legislation—not dissimilar to immigration—where there is a massive pile of regulation and rules alongside primary legislation. That is not new—it is just the way that things have developed, probably since the early ’70s and before.

In terms of the perfectly reasonable debate earlier—I always get this in at some stage during our Committees—the Committee should be aware that we should not suffer from undue specificity. If we put something on the face of the Bill that looks in the first instance as though it blocks off an option or is trying to put a principle on the face of the Bill, that can in many circumstances, rather erroneously and unintentionally, preclude a whole series of other things from being included, because of the undue specificity. That is why we have regulations alongside to explore things much more fully.

Therefore, to be perfectly frank, I do not understand amendment 3, which seeks to simply take away the regulation-making power, does not put anything in its place, and says that we cannot prescribe what we mean in terms of matters and circumstances and good cause.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I repeat that amendment 3 is designed as a probing amendment to seek details. At this stage I will not be moving it to a vote.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In that context, I fully understand amendment 3 as a probing amendment. It clearly made no sense on its own terms. But I apologise—I realise that the hon. Gentleman said “probing” at the start.

If the Committee seeks an exhaustive list on the face of the Bill outlining what good causes may be, that is a fool’s errand. That is in the sense that, with the greater personalisation and the focus on individuals, we would hope to be as flexible as possible precisely because of the very personal nature of that relationship. Of course, that will include a person’s health and other such matters. Currently, in terms of sanctions on the new deal, the following circumstances all constitute good cause, in terms of an impediment to the individual being able to comply with the conditions: disease or physical and mental disablement, travelling time, caring responsibilities, attendance at court, arranging or attending a funeral, being in a lifeboat crew or a part-time firefighter, domestic emergencies, emergency duties, continued participation potentially putting the individual’s health and safety at risk, antisocial behaviour orders, and community orders or community disposal orders.

Equally, we could not have an exhaustive list of health conditions. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East will know that elsewhere in the Bill we will be discussing what we can do in the most flexible of terms for individuals with ongoing disability, fluctuating conditions or—particularly in the case of later clauses—problematic drug use. So, quite deliberately, the Bill is drawn as broadly as possible, to be as all-encompassing as possible in terms of providing the individual with as much scope as possible for a good cause to be part of the developing relationship between the personal adviser and the individual. Two years down the line, at the end of the new deal, after 24 months on JSA, we think not only that the conditionality should apply—we are very clear about that—but equally, that it should apply in the most flexible of circumstances. We should take full cognition of an individual’s circumstances, and ensure that what is established in terms of good cause is as broadly drawn as possible.

I do not accept the contention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, East that somehow Jobcentre Plus will not be up for this. It has been and will continue to be. I am glad he did not go down the same road as the hon. Member for Rochdale and talk about trying to legislate, in all the circumstances of February 2009, for what will prevail in the future once we get through the recession. The starting point taken by the hon. Member for Hertsmere—to tease out more readily what we mean by good cause—is, on reflection, a perfectly reasonable probing amendment. I hope that I have sought, at least in part, to answer his questions. I am grateful that he is not going to pursue amendment 3. I would add, given what I have already said, that amendments 77, 88 and 89 are therefore not necessary. I also think they are problematic, in the sense of how they relate to some other parts of the Bill, and some other parts of what we are doing. They potentially restrict rather than allow the greatest degree of flexibility, which is central to all that we are trying to do in terms of the two-way relationship rooted in the conditionality regime.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

‘(8A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (8) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 7, in clause 2, page 5, line 28, at end insert—

‘(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Minister under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

‘(6A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Minister under subsection (5) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Amendment 22, in schedule 1, page 66, line 9, at end insert—

‘23A A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Minister under Part 1 of Schedule 1 shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Amendment 15, in clause 7, page 13, line 37, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

‘(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Amendment 19, in clause 19, page 25, line 18, at end insert—

‘(10A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsections (6), (7), (8), (9) or (10) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

It may assist the Committee to know that all these amendments stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They relate to the type of parliamentary scrutiny that regulations should be subject to under the Bill. In each case, they require the affirmative resolution procedure as an alternative to the negative resolution procedure that is in place at the moment in the Bill.

As the Committee, and anyone who looks at the Bill, will have gathered, it contains an enormous number of regulation-making powers. Without counting them up exactly, I understand that the vast majority are subject to the negative procedure and only one or two are subject to the affirmative procedure. It would take up a lot of the Committee’s time and possibly generate inappropriate debate if one was to suggest that the negative procedure was taken out in every case and replaced by the affirmative procedure. In these amendments we have taken what we regard as some of the more important issues currently covered by the negative procedure—I will be corrected if I am wrong about that, but at the moment they seem to be covered by it—and suggested, as a way of opening up a debate, whether or not they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am afraid that it will be necessary to leap between a number of subjects and areas in the Bill.

First, amendment 4 would require the use of the affirmative procedure under clause 1(8). That is in the case of hardship payments where sanctions have been applied for failure to comply with “work for your benefit” regulations. This is obviously a sensitive issue. We observe that in the notes on clauses, provision for such hardship payments is contained in section 20B(4) of the Jobseekers Act 1995. It may be that the Government envisage the hardship provisions working here in the same way as the ones that are already established. It is certainly important to hear a few words from the Minister on this subject.

Amendment 7 refers to proposed new section 2D. This is a different subject—that of work-related activity for claimants in receipt of various income-based benefits, including employment and support allowance. The regulation-making powers in question, to which this amendment relates, are very important in the context of what is required of these claimants by way of work-related activity. I am sure the Committee will understand that when I say “work-related activity,” it means not that a person will be required to look for a job, but that they will be required to undertake activity that serves as a preparation for finding work and helps to move them nearer to the labour market. It covers claimants in receipt of a number of different types of benefit.

So these regulation-making powers go to the heart of what is required of claimants. They, for example, prescribe the time and amount of work-related activity that a person is required to undertake, the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as undertaking such activity, and the imposition of a sanction where a person has failed to comply with requirements. Those are important matters, and they stand out from among the other regulation-making powers as ones where it is appropriate to at least consider whether the affirmative resolution procedure should be used, rather than the negative one.

Amendment 8 relates to regulation-making powers to reduce benefit where sanctions are imposed on a claimant who has failed to comply with requirements on work-related activity. We regard reductions in benefit and the length of time for which it is to be reduced as important matters. We note that, in this context, the Gregg report—the Committee will be familiar with Professor Gregg, who gave evidence to us in our sitting two weeks ago—said of the sanctions that are currently in place:

“Whilst the current regime is broadly effective and certainly increases compliance with labour market conditions, there is also widespread acknowledgment that it is complex and difficult to understand. The process is also, in some circumstances, time-consuming and costly to operate. This means that the system is not as clear and crisp as it could be, which reflects the piecemeal development of conditionality across different benefits based on different legislation, different regulations and different case law.”

The Government, in their December White Paper, admitted that there were shortcomings in some respects in the way sanctions were working—although we know that the Government are seeking, through the Bill, to move benefits together, which will reduce the number of benefits to some extent. In the light of those criticisms and considerations, it is important to have a debate about this.

In their White Paper, the Government suggested that the initial sanction for non-compliance for jobseekers should be one week’s loss of jobseeker’s allowance. We wonder whether the Government have the same amount in mind in the case of non-compliance for work-related activity.

Amendment 22 relates to schedule 1, which makes various amendments to the Jobseekers Act 1995. The delegated powers memorandum states that it contains amendments to the Act, which would provide a framework under which some people are not required to meet some of the conditions

“but...are expected to prepare for work in the future.”

It contains detailed provisions related to conditionality, dealing with requirements to attend work-focused interviews; powers to direct claimants to undertake activities relating to finding employments, becoming employable, and remaining employed; action plans, requirements to undertake work-related activity and application of sanctions. These are very important matters. They may apply, in some cases, to lone parents with younger children; we think it is right to raise the issue once again in this context, at the level of parliamentary scrutiny which is appropriate to them.

Amendment 15 relates to clause 7, which gives the Secretary of State the power to abolish income support. This is obviously a very sweeping regulation—a very big step. We apprehend that this is the direction in which the Government wish to travel. We understand that that will be done once the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to prescribe income support to groups of people because they are catered for elsewhere in the benefits system. As I indicated a moment ago, the Government are trying to move benefits together, which was recommended in various reports into this subject. By saying that this is a big step, I support the proposition. It is perhaps appropriate to consider whether this should be subject to the affirmative procedure as well, given that it is a step of great magnitude in social security policy. At the moment it appears that it is subject to the negative procedure. We wonder whether there is not a case for asking whether this step should be subject to the affirmative procedure when it comes to be taken.

Finally, in the same vein, we come to clause 19 and benefit sanctions following a first offence of benefit fraud. This is a different subject—up to now we have been talking about jobseeker’s allowance, “work for your benefit” and work-related activity for claimants—this concerns benefit offenders who have committed benefit fraud. We will come to this clause in due course—no doubt we will have a wider debate on it—but it is the same point about the type of parliamentary scrutiny that is appropriate. Under clause 19(6) to (10), which deal with the amounts by which benefits will be reduced, we once again wonder whether this is an appropriate case for the affirmative procedure. That is the common thread that runs through this: a concern for proper parliamentary scrutiny. We think it is entirely appropriate to ask about that in these circumstances and to raise the issue. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

To echo what the hon. Gentleman said, it is entirely appropriate to table such amendments and there is a consequent and ongoing tension between primary and secondary legislation. As I have tried to indicate, this is—not quite uniquely, because immigration is the same—a whole area of UK law where there is an entire regulatory framework alongside the primary legislative framework That is the way that both immigration and benefits law have worked for some time.

I also accept that there is a desire to scrutinise aspects of policy surrounding the Bill. For reasons that I shall come to, I do not accept that this is a necessarily proportionate way of doing it. There is a balance to be struck; there are existing safeguards to ensure that the regulations receive proper scrutiny. For example, we work closely with the Social Security Advisory Committee on regulation. We have shown with the employment and support allowance regulations that we are willing to go beyond what is required of a Department by law and engage constructively with the Committee. We will also study with great care the memo from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and will respond appropriately.

If I may, I shall briefly discuss each element in turn. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, Amendment 4 relates to the hardship payments under the “work for your benefit” regime. I can assure hon. Members that we intend to apply pretty much the same hardship regime that is already operating for JSA. It is more an updating of the regulations than the introduction of anything substantially new. In that context, I think it appropriate that it is negative—the Committee will know that negative resolutions are laid and, under the negative process, hon. Members can pray against them and they can eventually get their day in court, for want of a better phrase. Negative does not mean that there is no recourse to a degree of scrutiny.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, amendment 7 relates to clause 2 and how those moving from income support to JSA are treated. Again, we propose to introduce regulations that are similar to existing ones that relate to work-focused interviews, action plans and jobseeker’s agreements, including relevant good cause provisions. They are therefore appropriately carried out under the negative resolution.

Amendment 15 is strange given that it relates to the abolition of income support. The key safeguard here, as the hon. Gentleman said, is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there are no groups who still need it before the benefit is abolished. By the time the negative resolution is laid, everyone will be clear that there is no need for income support any more, so it should be abolished. Why that should not be done under a negative rather than a positive procedure escapes me; we would only lay that negative resolution when the time is right for that particular benefit to be abolished.

I have found an amendment where the hon. Gentleman was in error: amendment 19 is unnecessary—I can confirm that the affirmative procedure will already apply. The regulation-making powers are intended to be the same as those existing in the two strikes legislation in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, because this is inserted in that legislation—but it will be the affirmative rather than the negative.

The Committee will be aware that in both the delegated powers memorandum and the document to which I referred—which is now, I hope, available—there are copious notes and tables about where regulation powers are taken and whether they are to be pursued under negative or positive procedures.

Amendments 8 and 22 refer to the establishment of the progression to work group—in particular, those who have moved from jobseeker’s allowance to income support. I appreciate that the powers seem wide-ranging, but we either build on the existing JSA regulations or mirror the types of conditionality that will be applied in income support before people migrate to JSA. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that notwithstanding that it builds on existing conditionality, we are still developing what we want to take forward as the Gregg model—for want of a better phrase.

Although I am not accepting the amendments—God forbid; I do not do that sort of thing—I think that the hon. Gentleman does, potentially, have a point. As we develop the model of conditionality during the Bill, amendments 8 and 22 may be ones that we should return to given the import and the substance of those regulations, and the significant shift that they will make. In that spirit, I still ask him to take the lot of them away, but with amendments 8 and 22 the hon. Gentleman does have half a point, at least. I need to reflect on whether it is more than half a point.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and his implicit acceptance that we are subjecting this aspect to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I have, at least, got half a point—which is half a point more than I have sometimes been credited with after much longer consideration of other Bills.

The Minister will accept that at the outset we were trying to select some of the things which we thought were most important for affirmative resolution debate. I want to say very gently, without wishing to dislodge any good spirit, that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Secretary of State making a decision, but it is not always the case that we agree with what the Secretary of State decides; we hope we do in this case. In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 1, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

‘(8A) Regulations under this section must make provision to ensure that providers—

(a) submit to the Secretary of State data showing the number of participants with a disability at every state of the scheme by impairment category;

(b) are required to show how they will meet the needs of participants with particular disabilities.’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 1, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of, or in connection with, any scheme within section 17A(1) the Secretary of State shall review data showing the number of participants with a disability at every stage of the scheme by impairment category.’.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The amendments are very simple. They seek to explore how the proposals may impact on disabled people. We know that these people, generally, are one of the groups most excluded from the work force. Only 49 per cent. of disabled people and only 17 per cent. of people with learning disabilities are in work. That suggests that the failure is largely that of the workplace and not of disabled people.

The amendments seek to ensure careful consideration of the impact of the proposals on disabled people. I am grateful to Mencap for its briefing on this matter. There is a concern that such measures may be introduced as a consequence of factors outside the control of individual disabled people, such as failure by the flexible new deal provider, or the unwillingness of employers to take on, and acknowledge that there are problems in relation to, those people. The DWP’s impact assessment on this proposal stated:

“This policy proposal is expected to have a greater impact on people with a disability as they are more likely to reach the end of Flexible New Deal without having moved into employment.”

I am seeking reassurances in relation to this whole area that this issue will be properly monitored, that providers will have to provide information about people with specific disabilities, whether learning or physical, and that these issues will be properly looked at by the relevant Minister so that the impact of these important changes on the way we deal with these issues is properly examined, on the basis that people with disabilities face particular barriers.

To sum up, I am essentially seeking to ensure that it is possible to identify what is happening to disabled people as a result of the changes, and to ensure that their specific needs are recognised in the future.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood.

Although I share the sentiments that inspired the amendment, I have a concern about it. I, too, looked at the excellent briefing note from Mencap, which covers the use of providers and relates to some of the evidence that we heard from Ministers. We have spoken about the black box concept—the concept of letting providers go off and deliver what they are supposed to do to get people into work. The concern is that if one says that those providers have to provide a detailed raft of information to the Department, which inevitably means that the Department is going to take action as a result of that information, one is in danger, if one is not careful, of effectively having the Department micro-manage what the providers are doing. I am not sure whether that is the right solution.

Nevertheless, the hon. Lady has drawn attention to a genuine concern. The way to tackle that, when one is getting providers to get people into work, is to look at the needs of individuals and the fee that the providers receive. If providers are paid a flat fee, there is exactly the danger that she suggests: those who require more help and support to get into work may well be neglected. If, however, the fee reflects the amount of work that will be needed to get someone into work, it ensures that those people who have a greater requirement for help and support will get it. That would be a better solution than the amendments that the hon. Lady is proposing. However, like her, I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say, to see whether he will reflect on the point that I have made. If he will not, her proposals may actually have some merit.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We look forward to your guidance during our proceedings.

I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley. She raised the same point during the oral evidence hearings, and we had some brief discussions on the issue. I also welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean. What we are hoping to achieve—I am sure that there is agreement across the House on this—is to provide help to those who are furthest from the labour market. In particular, people with learning difficulties have stubbornly remained furthest from the labour market for far too long. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, along with many of us, will have seen excellent examples of innovative programmes that have provided real jobs for people with learning difficulties. One of those—I am sure that she is aware of it—is Project Search, which we are piloting at Norfolk and Norwich hospital and Leicester city council. It is an exemplary project, providing good training, job coaches and assistance to those people—people who seemingly could not find work but have found work.

I would like to address the point that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean raised about this black box. We do not want to be so specific that we dictate the parameters within which providers assist people with learning disabilities to find employment. To date, that has not worked. We are not in the position to be able to say that what we have done so far, universally, has worked for people with learning disabilities. We can certainly point to some good examples and, as is often the case with public policy, where we see good things working we just want that to be spread across the board, but delivering that is always the frustration for policy makers, whether nationally or locally.

In terms of the people that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley referred to—the risk assessment of people with learning disabilities, or people with disabilities—it is likely to be those people who come to the end of the flexible new deal and have not found employment. She is right to highlight that, and I can give her some assurances with regards to what we intend to do at that point.

We intend that the Jobcentre Plus personal adviser will review, in partnership with providers, every case in which someone reaches the end of the flexible new deal without finding sustained work, Mr. Hood. This is to ensure we have a clear idea of the barriers and circumstances that an individual faces—you will hear that word repeatedly throughout our proceedings because it is about tailoring our support and resources to individuals—and will act as a safeguard to ensure that only those who are capable of working will be referred to this programme.

We acknowledge that some jobseekers have particular circumstances that we need to consider as we design the programme and the way it operates. That is why we intend that the “work for your benefit” programme will offer personalised and tailored support. We will incorporate appropriate safeguards to ensure that the work experience offered is suitable and relevant to an individual’s circumstances, in the way that the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested earlier. People with disabilities who have restrictions within their jobseeker’s agreement relating to the days and hours they must be available to work, will also be able to apply those restrictions to participation in the “work for your benefit” programme. Similarly, any restrictions in jobseeker’s agreement on the type of work a person is available for will also apply. It is not our intention that people will be required to participate in activities that are unsuitable and inappropriate to their personal circumstances.

We expect our suppliers to be exemplary in meeting their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, including the disability equality duty. This aims to ensure that all bodies actively promote equality for disabled people when providing a service on behalf of the Secretary of State. The contract for the “work for your benefit” programme will require suppliers to support the Secretary of State in his duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. The DWP’s contract management arrangements will monitor delivery in that regard, and customers will have the opportunity to discuss any problems with their jobseeker advisers. As my hon. Friend is aware, we will be piloting those. It is important that we monitor the effectiveness of this, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform said, we do not want any undue specificity. Is that correct?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Yes.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am grateful. We do not want a list because there would be an inevitable discussion about who is on it and who is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley will be aware of that from her time as a Minister. We want the flexibility that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean referred to, so that we can see a step change in the pool of talent among people with learning disabilities. We have seen such people providing excellent work and being assets to the organisations they work for.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments so far, but he has not addressed the issue I raised on differential fees for the rewards paid to providers. I know that the Department is thinking about that idea and will pilot it. My concern is that if providers are paid a flat fee for every person they try to get into work, so that the fee structure does not reflect the amount of help and support required, there is a danger that certain categories of people will be neglected, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley suggested. It might be too late if they have to wait until they fail to get a new job under the flexible new deal. Will the Minister say a little on the Department’s plans for differential fees?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up on that important point. There has been concern over cherry-picking, not just under this provision, but under our supported employment programme. We do not want to see cherry-picking. Under this programme, we will develop a payment and contracts model to minimise that risk. We are also exploring the new personalised employment programme and the new accelerator funding model. This is another example of where we are running pilots so that we get things right. I am sure he will agree that we must balance value for money with the personalised, tailored programmes that will provide success for the individual in gaining employment.

Following those remarks and my assurances to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley and the Committee, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The last thing I want to see is micro-management; that is not the right way forward. I wanted reassurance that there will be proper monitoring and evaluation; without that, I fear that we will continue to see disabled people disadvantaged. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the disability equality duty. As he has reassured me that there will be management arrangements for proper monitoring and evaluation of the issues I have raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

This is the appropriate moment to raise one matter with the Minister. As was the case with the proposals that we brought out before this programme, it is important to bear in mind that the “work for your benefit” scheme will not kick in initially with a jobseeker’s claim, but only after a jobseeker’s claim has been extant for a considerable period. As I understand the Government proposal, it must be at least two years from the beginning of the jobseeker’s claim and after a year of job search followed by a year on the flexible new deal.

The commencement of the “work for your benefit” programme is tied to the beginning of the flexible new deal. We understand from the December 2008 White Paper that the programme is due to be piloted from 2010. It states:

“The pilots will start in 2010, in line with the first people completing 12 months on Flexible New Deal.”

As Committee members may recollect, the flexible new deal is not expected to commence until 1 October 2009. As we speak, the end stage of the tendering process is subject to delays. What is the implication of this for the “work for your benefit” scheme? Is the “work for your benefit” scheme still tied to the flexible new deal? Is it therefore likely to be affected by the circumstances that are apparently causing some turbulence in the flexible new deal tendering process?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Briefly, the answer to the perfectly fair question is probably yes and no. Yes, in the sense that of course it is inextricably linked with the flexible new deal. And, notwithstanding periods of reflection and turbulence, there is no proposal to do anything other than bring in the flexible new deal by October 2009. The two are inextricably linked. For reference, and no more, we have asked the healthy list of providers who bid for the flexible new deal to revisit some of their assumptions. The original assumption was for a cohort of 100,000 long-term unemployed. We have now asked them to look at a range from 100,000 to 300,000. So it is a live contract process which, unlike this legislation, is very much connected with the economic downturn. Yes, the two are linked but no, at this stage there are no plans other than to pursue the start date for the flexible new deal of 1 October. In that context I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

May I advise members of the Committee that the huge document that the Minister mentioned in an earlier contribution is now in the room? I have had copies put on the table. The subject is welfare reform and the use of regulation-making powers.

Clause 2

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 2, page 4, line 21, at end insert—

‘(A1) This section does not apply in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age.’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment 44, in clause 2, page 4, line 21, at end insert—

‘(A1) This section does not apply in the case of a single parent with a child under seven years of age.’.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Clause 2 deals with the work-related activity which may be required of certain benefit claimants, including benefit claimants on income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income-related employment and support allowance. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, the clause appears to affect lone parents of younger children who are currently in receipt of income support. This is the relevant point to ventilate some important considerations for lone parents of younger children.

Amendment 39 deals with the age that the youngest child must have reached before lone parents are required to take part in the work-related activity regime envisaged in these proposals. It would set that age at five. Amendment 44, which has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, sets it at seven. The background to this is quite important. Until last year it was possible for a single parent to remain on income support until the youngest child reached the age of 16. However, in June 2007 the Government announced that they were moving lone parents from income support to jobseeker’s allowance in stages.

The process began last year, when the age limit for single parents to remain on income support was reduced to the youngest child reaching the age of 12. As we speak, the process of transferring lone parents from income support to jobseeker’s allowance is proceeding in jobcentres up and down the country. The age at which lone parents are transferred from income support to jobseeker’s allowance will fall to seven in October 2010. That leaves open the question of what is expected of lone parents with children under seven. Of course, they will not be expected to move from income support to jobseeker’s allowance, as is the case with lone parents of children over the age of seven, but under the Government’s plans they will be expected to fulfil the requirements set out in the clause, some of which we have already touched on when debating other amendments.

Our understanding of the Government’s proposals as a whole is that they see lone parents as part of a progression to work group from the time their youngest child is aged one. The Government have set out how they see that group in their discussion paper on the implementation of the Gregg review. According to their response to that review, lone parents with children aged between one and two years will be

“Required to attend Work Focused interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan”.

However, the important point is that when the youngest child reaches the age of three, lone parents will be

“Required to follow the full progression to Work regime based around Work Focused interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction.”

That presumably means that lone parents with children aged three or over will be subject to the regime of sanctions for failing to comply with the requirements, as is set out in the Bill.

Amendment 39 would substitute the age of three with the age of five as the point at which the regime and all its requirements would begin. The age of five was specified in the Government’s July 2008 Green Paper as the appropriate age at which requirements could begin to be made on lone parents. The Green Paper envisaged piloting a requirement for lone parents whose youngest child is five or six to attend relevant skills training where that would address the skills gaps identified as a barrier to starting work. Subsequently, the Gregg review suggested that lone parents with a youngest child between the age of one and seven should be in the progression to work group, as I have indicated, as part of the Gregg vision of personalised conditionality, although I do not believe that Professor Gregg specified the age of three as the age at which that move to the regime would occur, as the Government are now setting out.

The progression to work group is intended to prepare people for full availability for work, and in this case we are talking about preparing single parents for entry to the jobseeker’s regime when their youngest child reaches the age of seven. Commencing the work-related activity for them at the age of five, as suggested in amendment 39, would give them two years in which to undertake work-related activity to prepare them for work, and something along those lines seems to have been present in the Government’s thinking in the July 2008 Green Paper.

The question I wish to put to the Minister is this: why is the two years of work-related activity in that regime from the time the youngest child reaches the age of five insufficient to prepare lone parents for work?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

In view of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, can he tell us what has happened to the recommendation of his own party’s social justice policy group, chaired by the former leader of his party, that:

“Whilst their youngest child is below the age of 5 they should spend between 5 and 10 hours a week preparing for work”?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for studying that document, because it has proved to be the inspiration behind much of what we are debating today. It created the momentum of the debate because we had 11 years in which there was no movement at all and the age remained 16. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, he will see that the age of five was specifically mentioned in that report as the age of the youngest child at which parents should be moved across, and of course that document did not have in mind the full regime that we are now talking about. The Under-Secretary of State looks perplexed about that, but when that document was written the social justice policy group did not have in mind and could not know the full regime proposed by the Government. We have no issue with the regime as a generality, but in the case of parents of younger children we think that there is an issue to discuss in cases where parents will be subject to the regime and to sanctions for failing to comply. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that there are issues to be debated and that it is right for us to debate the age at which that move takes place. He has not answered the question of why two years is insufficient time.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman said that I looked perplexed. I was perplexed because I did not understand whether he shared the view of his own policy commission—and, indeed, our view—that there should be work-focused activity when the child is under, not at, the age of five. I would be grateful for his response.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I think that I responded to that in my answer to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. We are talking about the regime, not some general work-focused activity. We have no problem with interviews. However, this is a very specific regime in which action plans have to be agreed, directions are given and sanctions may follow for non-compliance from when the child is aged three, as the hon. Lady knows from her study of both the documents and the Government’s response to the Gregg report.

I hoped that the hon. Lady would answer the question of why two years was insufficient time for lone parents to prepare for work. We are willing to listen to the debate. Two years is a long time for somebody to prepare for work. We are talking about somebody whose lack of availability for work is caused, in the first instance, by the fact that they are caring for a child. They are not in the same position as somebody in receipt of employment and support allowance, who may need to spend time managing a condition that they have. Here the inhibition is the care of a child; that is what prevents the parent from going into the labour market. Five is a reasonable age in such circumstances, as it leaves two years for a parent to prepare for work, and the child will have started school. It is reasonable to ventilate the issue, and we look forward to hearing why two years is not sufficient time for a parent to be under the regime envisaged in the proposals.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I wish to continue to press the hon. Gentleman on that point. As I said before, his own social justice policy group says that a lone parent should spend between five and 10 hours a week preparing for work if their child is under five. What activity did the group envisage during those five to 10 hours?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am waiting for an answer from him as to why two years is not sufficient. I shall make a deal with him. I am interested to hear his answer—[Interruption.] I have given the hon. Gentleman our answer.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I ask for a little calm.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The hon. Gentleman has had his answer. The commission for social justice could not have known about this specific regime, under which lone parents will be subject to sanctions. I think that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, feel that it is reasonable to ventilate the issue. I return to my question: why is two years not sufficient? If he cannot answer, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I assume that the hon. Gentleman’s commission would argue that two years was not sufficient, otherwise why would it recommend that the job preparation activity should commence while the child was under five? I return to my earlier question about the five to 10 hours, which he has still not answered. Does his commission envisage lone parents undergoing a 10-hour interview?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I think that we are going round in circles. The question is whether two years is sufficient time to prepare under a regime that is subject to sanctions. If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer, I look forward to an answer from the Minister.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

We have started an important debate about conditionality within a new system of work-related activity. As has been said, we have already seen a change of Government policy, in that a lone parent will now have to engage in work-related activity when their child reaches the lower age of 12. That policy has been operating for only a short time and it is still bedding in, but we now have a Government proposal to lower the age to three. Taking on board the fact that the change is new, we believe that support for lone parents getting back into work is not fully in place, and that must be addressed. Indeed, we have heard of examples of people who have been given, in our view, quite inappropriate advice about what they can and cannot do in terms of getting back to work. There are still barriers to work for lone parents—child care, transport and facilities barriers. For example, there is only one child care place for every 200 children over 11, yet the Government are already moving the provision from the age of 12 to three, and the way in which to deal with a parent with older children has not been addressed. Serious issues must be addressed before the change can be made.

We suggest in amendment 44 that the child should be seven rather than five before conditionality beds in, and we would like a phased movement rather than the Government’s complete change because that would give the parent time to organise and prepare themselves for work as the child starts school. We need some answers about this aspect, which deals with young children and lone parents. In particular, I should like from the Minister a commitment—the Child Poverty Action Group has asked for it, too—that parents will be protected from any financial sanctions that worsen the severity of child poverty, and that any non-financial sanctions that might be imposed as a result of the regime will not create additional expenditure for the parent. If parents are required to attend a particular locality for a certain number of hours, will the costs of travel and child care be paid for?

We also want assurances that decisions on child care will rest fully and firmly with the parent and that under no circumstances will a direction be given to them that they have to take a particular form of child care. We want an assurance that lone parents and partners in education—I had a case relating to this a couple of weeks ago—will not be required to cease their education, which in turn will be recognised as a work-related activity. The case I had involved a single parent who was looking after two young children and had gone to university. He received a student loan, but that was classed as income and affected his entitlement to housing benefit, so he had to drop out of the course because he could not afford to pay his rent and university fees. Such real issues affect lone parents, and if we are going to apply stricter conditionality at a much lower age, we need to address the availability of child care, for example. It would be interesting to hear what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that child care for older children will be improved under the current regime. It appears that the Government are moving far too quickly, and that they do not have the support in place to enable this group to get back into work, which is, I am sure, what we all want.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

We have already touched on some of these topics, including during our discussion of the first set of amendments. It is important to start by saying that no one has a monopoly on concern for child poverty, as the hon. Member for Rochdale implies. Everyone can quote the Child Poverty Action Group. The surest way to help children out of poverty is to support more parents into paid work that enables parents to manage the careful balance between employment and family life—that must be absolutely right. The hon. Member for Hertsmere will know that Professor Gregg suggested conditionality from the age of one.

The hon. Member for Rochdale is confused, in part, when he suggests that there is a time dimension to being prepared for work. We have had what I consider to be a rather facile debate about two years versus one year versus three years versus four years. Let us be clear that work-related activity is about the health and well-being—intellectually, morally, spiritually and every other way—of the individual while there are barriers, including the delight of childbirth, to getting back into work. That is the centre of what Gregg was saying, and to describe it as a mechanistic process in which one can turn a tap on and off and say that six months will do, as though it were an elongated version of a makeover or make-up session, is nonsense. This is about not preening someone to get back into the labour market, but providing all that we can for an end goal that all the child poverty lobby agrees is desirable: to get people who want to do so back into work.

The hon. Gentleman again draws a picture of doom and gloom—Rochdale doom and gloom not Hertsmere’s; Hertsmere is happier—about the notion of conditionality as though it were oppressive, suppressive and driving down on lone parents for some malign intent, as yet not fully defined, but nothing could be further from the case. It is about trying to help and support people get back into work at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Gentleman—for Hertsmere this time, not Rochdale—is seriously suggesting that we need to leave people alone and not trouble them until their children are five, and then between five and seven we should have a magical process to get them back to work-readiness and back into work. That is, at one level, utterly neglectful. We need to start working with lone parents at the earliest opportunity—with them, I emphasise—with all that that entails on removing barriers, to get them ready for, and ultimately involved in, work-related activity, and then to get them back into the labour market. Again, quite deliberately, work-related activity is drawn at its widest. We cannot have a Bill that purports to offer as much personalised and flexible support as possible and then get lost in an anally retentive fixation on lists that define what that flexibility is—by definition that is an oxymoron.

Why the age of three? Notwithstanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, three is increasingly—it is not yet 100 per cent. there throughout England and Wales—the age at which the state provides full-time child care. The duty on local councils is newish, and the absence of such provision will be taken fully into account when discussing the details of an individual’s work-related activity at three.

Saying that the two years do not matter either way, and that five is a lot better, is at least a more measured approach from the hon. Member for Hertsmere. The Leader of the Opposition, as is his perennial wont, dismissed these plans as sick and shameful in his rush to jump on the nearest bandwagon—he is more fixated with bandwagons than the Liberal Democrats used to be, which is a shame. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when he welcomes his soon-to-be-ennobled Front Bencher in the Lords, David Freud, who thinks we are being timid. He would like us to go much further than even we are suggesting, although I do not know whether that was a Freudian slip. It is rather a shame that there is a notion that this is territory in which we should play rather futile politics. There can and should be as wide a consensus as possible.

The age of seven is a nonsense, although I would entertain five a little more, notwithstanding the point about Scotland. Starting to talk to individual lone parents about their journey back into work by time the child is seven should, in the interests of those parents, happen at the earliest opportunity. The closer the child gets to seven and the lone parent to that stage of obligation, I would envisage a slightly stronger focus on the work element of the work-related activities rather than the broader skills and training element.

The amendments are, I hope, probing rather than otherwise—certainly that tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. We take it as read that the hon. Member for Rochdale could not care less about the Bill or the policy framework that we are seeking to adopt. However, I fear if he continues for too much longer, the implication of his comments will be that he could not care less about the people about whom we are talking, and that would be a dangerous road to go down. I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I shall study the Minister’s words carefully because the subject is important. We think that it is reasonable to have a debate about the age at which such requirements are placed on lone parents. We have no problem with the general vision of getting people back to work and of conditionality in appropriate circumstances. The Minister mentioned going further, and we will not be slow to come forward with ideas about how the Government can go further than they are at present—much further in some cases. He referred to giving help to parents of children below the age of three—help with interviews and making suggestions and assistance available. There is no problem with that either.

What is significant about the Government’s proposals, however, is the way in which things change at the age of three. Some of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks were fair, but he referred to a mechanistic approach on our part. However, when I look at the Government’s proposals, I think mechanistic is rather a good word to use to describe them. I will quote so that the Committee will know exactly the issues at stake as we consider the amendment

“Age of youngest child—1-2: Conditionality Grouping—Progression to Work: Required to attend Work Focused Interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan or any other activities, although they will be encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis...3-6: Progression to Work: Required to follow the full progression to Work regime based around Work Focused interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction.”

We apprehend, since it has not been said to the contrary, that those parents will also be subject to the full rigour of the sanctions regime in the same way as others in the sane conditionality group.

We need to reflect on these important matters and to think carefully about the question of age and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 2, page 4, line 26, at end insert

‘unless the person is caring for another person for 35 hours or more per week.’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 58, in clause 7, page 13, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) In exercising the powers contained in subsections (1) to (3) the Secretary of State shall not require people caring for at least 35 hours per week who are receiving income support to claim jobseeker’s allowance.’.

Amendment 59, in clause 8, page 14, line 11, at end insert ‘including any caring responsibilities.’.

New clause 3—Review of carers’ benefits—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the benefits to which carers are entitled, reporting to Parliament on the outcome of this review no later than six months after the Welfare Reform Bill receives Royal Assent.

(2) The Secretary of State must involve carers in this review and must publish a report on the findings of the review.’.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments and my party’s general views on the Bill, the Government are seeking to introduce major changes in legislation. We will do two things. We will put forward alternative policies and seek to amend what the Conservative Opposition have described as mechanistic and what we would describe as half-baked and ill thought-out.

Amendments 58 and 59 and new clause 3 are probing amendments that deal with issues associated with carers and the carer’s allowance. Amendment 57, which relates to clause 2, removes the requirement to engage in workplace activity for a person who is caring for another person for 35 hours or more per week. The current lack of provision for carers does not sit well with the research that the Department has carried out, including the Gregg report. Some 230,000 people satisfy the criteria for carer’s allowance—that is, they are caring for someone for at least 35 hours a week and currently receive income support or income-based JSA. We would welcome clarification that people in that category will not be required to undertake work-focused activity. That is consistent with what was set out in Paul Gregg’s report, and which was confirmed in the White Paper: that people providing substantial care should be in the no-conditionality group.

There are several other related issues, such as the current inadequacy of the carer’s allowance, which is the lowest of all the income replacement benefits at £50.55 a week. The earnings limit of £95 a week prevents many carers from progressing into paid work, and the rule banning more than 21 hours of study per week traps carers on benefits and in low-status jobs. The allowance cannot be paid alongside a state pension, so it leaves many older carers with no recognition of their caring role or the assistance that they need with the costs of caring. I am aware that the Government have promised to overhaul the carer’s benefit, but that seems to have been completely overlooked in the Bill. That is a disappointment. The Government are committed to ensuring by 2018 that no carer is forced into financial hardship by virtue of their caring role, as set out in the national carers strategy, “Carers at the Heart of the 21st century: families and communities”, which was published in June last year.

The Work and Pensions Committee called in August last year for an overhaul of carer’s benefits and set out a prescription for reform that would tackle many of the problems I have just outlined. This clause proposes that people receiving income support, income-based JSA or income-based ESA will not be required to undertake work-related activity, as specified in these regulations. I hope that the Minister can give us that clarification, as well as saying why no opportunity has been taken in the Bill to deal with some of the inequalities relating to carer’s allowance.

Amendment 58 amends clause 7 and, again, ensures that in exercising the powers the Secretary of State will not require people to take part who are caring for at least 35 hours and are receiving income support. This is a probing amendment because we want to hear a commitment from the Government that they will not move carers off income support until there are clear and detailed plans setting out how the benefits system will be reformed over the long term. There is a need for further analysis of the ESA. The clause provides for the abolition of income support.

Carers UK welcomed the commitment in the White Paper, “Raising expectations and increasing support”, that carers receiving income support will not be moved off it until there is a clear and detailed plan setting out the long-term reform of the benefits system. The proposal in the Green Paper, “No one written off”, to move them to a modified version of jobseeker’s allowance caused distress and anger among carers, who saw it as insulting to receive a benefit that implied that they were not working already. Carers UK would welcome a reiteration of the Government’s commitment. When will we get further details of the clear and detailed plan?

Amendment 59 would add the instruction “including any caring responsibilities”. Again, we want a commitment from the Government that the changes in the Bill will not affect the commitments that have been made to this very vulnerable group until we have the long-term changes. That is also the purpose of new clause 3, which includes a requirement on the Secretary of State to

“undertake a review of the benefits to which carers are entitled, reporting to Parliament on the outcome of this review no later than six months after the Welfare Reform Bill receives Royal Assent.”

We want carers to be involved in that review and the findings to be published.

Given the Government’s previous commitments to carers, we believe that the promise of a review within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent will provide reassurance on the needs of carers. They undergo discrimination at the moment and the caring duties that they carry out are worth millions of pounds each year. Before some of the changes in the Bill are introduced for carers, there should be a full review. I hope for and look forward to the Minister’s commitment to reaffirming and protecting the interests of carers, particularly in relation to the clause.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No one doubts that these are important matters. As was said earlier, the broader notion that we should move to a simplification of the benefits system and eventually to a single working-age benefit is the right sentiment. However, perhaps we got carried away in our enthusiasm for that journey when we insisted in the Green Paper that carers would all transfer to jobseeker’s allowance. I was happy to work with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, to review that aspect of the Green Paper. [Interruption.] I am not allowed to say “Jonathan”.

For the reasons suggested by many carers’ organisations, we have set aside the notion that all carers should be transferred from IS to ESA. One reason for that was that doing so would have suggested to carers that they do not already have a job. In many instances, caring for their family is very much a full-time job. We were very clear in the White Paper—much read out by the hon. Member for Rochdale—at least in spirit, that we would not be migrating, for want of a better phrase, carers on IS to JSA.

So what are we left with? We are left with the hon. Gentleman asking me to confirm the content of the White Paper, which, of course, I am very happy to do. We made very clear in the White Paper, and in our response to Professor Gregg, that we accepted his suggestion that anybody involved in full-time caring, above the 35 hours that the hon. Gentleman suggests in his amendments, should not be subject to conditionality at all. That is the import of both amendments 57 and 58, and given that we have said that as recently as in the White Paper, I can confirm that full-time carers will not be subject to conditionality. I hope that deals with amendments 57, 58 and 59.

New clause 3, which calls for a review of carers’ benefits, is, again, what was spelled out in the White Paper. I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he said almost word for word what I am implored by officials to read out:

“As a result we have amended our proposal”—

that in the Green Paper—

“and will not move carers from Income Support until we have”—

and I think these were the exact words the hon. Gentleman used —

“a clear and detailed plan setting out how we will reform the benefits system over the longer term.”

That commitment is, and remains, absolute. We are very mindful of the contribution carers make in this country—that is beyond doubt across all parties.

Much of what the hon. Gentleman suggests about extra areas that need looking at will be encompassed in that study. We may need to take a range of decisions as this work progresses, including moving people to different benefits under transitional arrangements. Many carers, however—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—want to work; some already receive jobseeker’s allowance with the carer premium. But the Government do appreciate that caring responsibilities often make it difficult or impossible for carers to consider taking up paid employment, and we have no intention of requiring carers to seek employment or of reducing the level of benefit income they receive.

As the hon. Gentleman also implied, last year we published “Carers at the heart of 21st century families and communities”. This followed the major review of our national strategy for carers, which was an enormous consultation exercise. He will know that the income taskforce, which was set up to examine the financial support available to carers, focused particularly on carers’ benefits. Many of the other points that he made—perfectly valid ones—regarding some of the criteria for benefits will be the focus of that taskforce, including the interface with that study.

Everyone agrees that benefits for carers should be reformed over the long term. We know also that, working with colleagues in the Department of Health, we need to be far more integrated in our broader approach to carers across government. We accordingly made a commitment to look at the full picture not just in the context of longer term plans for welfare reform, rather than piecemeal changes, but in the broader context of what, from the social care side, we are doing with carers from the health perspective.

There is a new standing committee on carers, which is overseeing the delivery of the overall carers’ strategy. Much of what we determine in the wider reform of carers’ benefits will feed into that process. I can therefore absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that his amendments on 35 hours and full-time carers and on the migration of carers from IS to jobseeker’s allowance, and the broader points that he makes in new clause 3, are covered in the White Paper. I say in the gentlest of terms that, given what I have said, his amendments and the new clause are not required. While I accept the spirit in which he made his case, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. In our view, it was important that those commitments be read into the record. Given that we have got those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (e).

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 3, page 10, line 24, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Amendment 6 refers to a specific point in the context of work-related activity requirements for partners: the work-related activity requirement for partners where a claimant has more than one partner—in other words, where there is a polygamous relationship. Polygamous relationships are recognised elsewhere, in social security legislation and policy, but we would like a bit more detail from the Government about what will happen in this instance.

Subsection 2D(2)(e) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 establishes a regulation-making power for determining, in the case of a claimant in a polygamous marriage, which of the partners is required to undertake work-related activity—or, indeed, whether all the partners are. The purpose of this amendment is to ascertain the principles that will lie behind this process, since nothing is said in the notes on clauses about the principles that will operate. On the face of it, it appears that a number of questions have to be answered. For example, in which cases will one, some or all of the partners be required to meet the requirements? If only one or some of the partners are required to meet the work-related activity requirements, how will the decision be made as to which one, or ones? There is no clue in the Bill or elsewhere as to how these decisions will be made. Therefore, we think it a proper use of parliamentary scrutiny to ask the Minister for a bit more detail as to how this will work in practice and what principles will be adopted to determine these issues.

Amendment 14 simply deals with the same issue in a different context—that is, in respect of a joint claim for jobseeker’s allowance. That raises the question of who are to be regarded as joint claimants and whether there is a joint claim for jobseeker’s allowance. Again, how will that be determined? Which of the partners will be part of the claim, and which will not?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, these are complex and sensitive matters that have already been recognised for some time in the body of social security legislation. This part of the Bill merely seeks to reflect that which already exists in recognition of this particular condition. I accept what he says, but we need to explore—not in the Bill but in regulation—precisely how to deal with the matters that he brings up. If the amendments are passed, we will lose the ability to do that.

Again, without wishing to sound like a broken record, we feel that this is more properly done in regulation rather than in the Bill, not least for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, we have to do so, since this recognition already exists in the body of social security legislation. Thirdly, officials can and should come forward, sooner rather than later, with the regulations and what they look like, to explain the perfectly valid points the hon. Gentleman makes. Although I know that my response to him is sadly lacking—in a sense, he is saying let us wait and see what the substance of the regulations is—in the spirit of a wonderful morning, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

How can I respond to such a suggestion? I think that the best response is to say that we will remain tantalised by how those decisions will be made, and we hope that there will be harmony when they are made in certain domestic circumstances, but we shall wait and see. It seems that we shall also have to wait until we see more of the regulations to know exactly what the principles of the measures will be and how they will work. In order to make progress, and in the spirit of these being probing amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 2, page 5, line 28, at end insert—

‘(j) but may not prescribe accessing of healthcare provision, taking of medication or accessing psychological therapies as a relevant requirement.’.

The measure relates to the conditions that may be attached to a person in order for them to receive work-related benefits, and the amendment would make a clear commitment that a personal adviser may not prescribe that someone should access a certain type of health care, medication or psychological therapy as a requirement of receiving benefit. I appreciate the importance of someone with a drug or alcohol problem or a mental illness receiving support and help, and I understand that it might be necessary for that person to deal with that problem or illness in order to take part in full-time work. Indeed, I think it vital that such people be encouraged to take that route. The evidence from the DWP’s voluntary programme has shown that when people are encouraged to go on a drug rehabilitation programme, they make progress and move into the world of work, whereas there is no evidence whatever that prescribing a certain form of treatment will be successful.

In the evidence sessions, we heard that nearly 250,000 people who currently receive benefits have drug and alcohol problems. We also heard that the health care budget would have to be increased by 50 per cent. if the Government’s target of ensuring that everyone is involved in the programme is to be achieved, but that is not going to happen. We do not believe that a move from encouraging people to seek treatment, as a means of getting them back into work, to making treatment compulsory is the right way forward. We believe that the best way forward is for the Government to continue what they are doing with the voluntary scheme, and to encourage and develop such programmes, which are the best way of getting people back into the work market.

We also have great concerns about who will undertake the direction. Will it be the personal adviser? If so, what additional training will they get? No qualifications are stipulated as being required for JCP advisers, and there is no qualification to say that a person is experienced at analysing, assessing and stipulating what course of treatment people who present themselves for interview should undertake. In our view, that kind of decision is best left to health care professionals.

Again, the Bill runs directly contrary to the recently published NHS constitution, which makes it clear that treatment shall not be prescribed to a patient, yet the Government are saying that it will be possible for a personal adviser to prescribe a course of treatment as a condition of benefit. That is totally contrary to the NHS constitution, and it is totally inappropriate. As I said, all the evidence is that voluntary programmes in which people readily engage are the ones that are likely to be successful.

On psychological therapies, how will a JCP adviser be able to carry out a proper assessment of a person who has a fluctuating mental illness? Earlier, we discussed the problems that may come about if a fluctuating illness means that a person is unable to attend for an interview. If the illness is so unstable and so fluctuating, what qualifications will the adviser have to make such decisions?

The clause is dangerous, and we do not believe that it is the right way to go about getting people back into work. As we said earlier, we would much prefer to see greater emphasis on developing programmes that will get people back into work. We have real concerns about how the measure may be interpreted, and we do not believe that this route will result in people with a drug or alcohol problem or a mental illness getting back to work. Much better routes could be taken, and we are disappointed with the formulation of the clause.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Interesting speech, but wrong clause! In the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm and rush to download every hackneyed clichÃ(c) that he possibly could while discussing his misinterpretation of our policies in clause 9 on drug misuse, he has tagged his concerns on to clause 2 and made the speech anyway. On one level, that is fine, but the downside is that we will have to hear it all again when we get to clause 9, which is a matter of regret.

Let me answer clearly the substance of what the hon. Gentleman said in the context of clause 2: we will never mandate any parent into any health intervention that is delivered by a health professional, including psychological therapies and the taking of medication, except if it is required as part of a drug rehabilitation programme, which is dealt with in clause 9.

On clause 2, in the context of work-related activity, income support claimants and partners of claimants, and in the context of the substance of the wording of the amendment, which states

“may not prescribe accessing of healthcare provision, taking of medication or accessing psychological therapies as a relevant requirement’,

I repeat, to allay the hon. Gentleman’s fears, that we will never mandate any parent into any health intervention such as those described.

Given right place, wrong time, or wrong place, right time—or wrong clause—I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, notwithstanding the substance of his comments.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I have listened to what the Minister said. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 5, line 49, at end insert

‘, including activity which enables the person to improve his or her skills for work.’.

The amendment concerns the definition of work-related activity, which the Bill defines as

“an activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so.”

There is common ground between us on the idea that the acquisition of skills makes it more likely that a person will obtain or remain in work, and I apprehend that the Government’s thinking is that the acquisition of skills will play an important part in work-related activity. However, we thought this was an opportunity to hear more about the Government’s plans and thinking, and to give them a gentle steer in our direction. We know that the issue is dealt with in the White Paper, and we will make common ground on it, but we would like to hear more detail and, particularly, what provision there will be for the assessment and reskilling of existing incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance claimants.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: the provision will include improving and identifying skills need and taking steps to improve such skills. We have, as I have indicated throughout the morning, drawn the definition of work-related activity as broadly as possible—quite deliberately, because different individuals will be at different stages on an array of different journeys on their way back to work. I should have thought that, for all concerned, improving and identifying skills need would be a central work-related activity, and as I tried to imply earlier, all the more important the closer the person got to the end of that journey back to work. The early stages of such a process, however, may include stabilising their housing situation; attending a motivation and confidence-building course—much pooh-poohed by many, but for people who are remote from the labour market, developing such self-esteem and confidence-building skills is important; starting to use the services of a children’s centre and all that that entails; or attending appropriate training, having discussed what was necessary with the personal adviser. So, the provision is quite deliberately drawn as broadly as possible.

On those—when we finally get to them—in the ESA work group, rather than in the support group, there will be a range of activities and help and support. Again, we have drawn the provision broadly so that we can make it as personalised as possible. If that sounds vague, it is meant to, because we really want individualised and personalised activity and support for each individual. I know that I sound a bit like a broken record.

I agree with the thrust of the amendment. In this case, the hon. Gentleman is probably three-quarters right rather than half right, but for the reasons suggested, there is no need for the amendment. We do not want to fall down that slippery slope of undue specificity. Although I embrace the spirit of the amendment, I ask that it be withdrawn as otiose.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Heaven forbid that we should be otiose, but we make common ground on this issue by wanting a wide reach for work-related activity, both in its forms and in the people whom it reaches. We are concerned that the provision should have as much effect in practice as possible and reach as many people as possible. Skills are an important part of that, but in light of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 6, line 12, leave out ‘in prescribed circumstances’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 6, line 29, after ‘which’, insert

‘the person is willing to undertake and which’.

Amendment 92, in clause 2, page 6, line 30, at end insert—

‘( ) an action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan.’.

Amendment 84, in clause 2, page 6, line 31, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Amendment 85, in clause 2, page 6, line 32, after first ‘the’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Amendment 86, in clause 2, page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 93, in schedule 1, page 54, line 45, at end insert—

‘An action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan.’.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Very briefly, this is a probing amendment. Subsection (2)(e) of the proposed new section requires an action plan to be prepared by a person, subject to requirements. It must be prepared by the Secretary of State in prescribed circumstances. We simply want to know more about what those prescribed circumstances are, and as such, this is a probing amendment seeking more detail. We note the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East; no doubt the Minister will want to explain how they fit into the scheme of the Bill. Amendments 84, 85 and 86 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale. If I may introduce a new word for the Committee, we have some concern about the “automaticity” of the provision that the hon. Gentleman is recommending—that there will always be a right to reconsideration of a report. We have some concerns, but we look forward to hearing more details from the Minister.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I wish to speak to amendments 91, 92 and 93, on the question of action plans. If we are going to have action plans there surely needs to be agreement as to what is in them. My reading of the Bill at the moment—and I seek reassurance from the Minister—is that the adviser, solely, would be able to lay down the terms of what is in the action plans. That may not be the intention but it is my reading of it. Elsewhere in the Bill we have talked about a right of control and wanting people to be involved in their own progress. It would seem that some of these measures would in fact take away from that, and the person’s real involvement and ownership would be less.

We obviously need to build confidence in people—going back to people with mental health issues and so on. I wonder whether imposing such an action plan, completely from outside, is the right way to go ahead. It appears that both the DWP and private contractors are able to issue mandatory directions. There is no detail in the Bill about how such an agreement between an adviser and a claimant would be reached, and if there is dispute over what is in these action plans, how that would be taken forward—other than when there is a sanction, there would then be an appeal.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

We want to look at the parts that deal with the actual sanctions, and the sanctions that may be taken if someone who is on income support—claimants, or partners of claimants—does not undertake the prescribed activities. We are seeking to introduce three small amendments—84, 85 and 86. We want to replace the word “may” with “shall”. We believe it is an important safeguard. We wish also to insert the word “reasonable”. I know we are not defining what we mean by reasonable—that presumably will be developed by case law—but we think it is important that a reasonable sanction should be imposed. The third change we wish to make is to leave out subsection (6)(a) of proposed new section 2D, which refers to the reduction, and how it is to be calculated by reference to such an amount as may be prescribed. That does not actually explain what is happening. They are small amendments but in terms of sanctions, they tighten up what is being proposed.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Amendments 11, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92 and 93 are all important in their own terms.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

On the importance in their own terms, is the Minister a little intrigued by the Liberal Democrats’ approach, which seems to be turning the clause around to arrive back in exactly the same position it was in in the first place? Under the Liberal Democrats’ amendments there is a mandatory provision—a “shall” provision, that there should be a reconsideration of an action plan at the reasonable request—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 91, in clause 2, page 6, line 29, after “which”, insert

“the person is willing to undertake and which”.

Amendment 92, in clause 2, page 6, line 30, at end insert—

“( ) an action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan.”.

Amendment 84, in clause 2, page 6, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Amendment 85, in clause 2, page 6, line 32, after first “the”, insert “reasonable”.

Amendment 86, in clause 2, page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 93, in schedule 1, page 54, line 45, at end insert—

“An action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan.”.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Having had an opportunity to reflect carefully, I find that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rochdale are even more defective than I first thought, but I will confine myself to my original intervention. Liberal Democrat amendment 84 is going about things the wrong way round. Instead of saying that regulations “may” make provision for reconsideration and setting out the circumstances in which that will take place so that everyone knows what those circumstances are and there is clarity, and so that the claimant, in particular, knows what the circumstances are, the amendment would do away with that—and just about do away with paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5)—because it would make it mandatory to have reconsideration. It would merely require that reconsideration shall take place at “the reasonable request” of the claimant without saying what amounts to reasonable. That seems to be the worst of all worlds.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD) rose—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on a Member making an intervention.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I was making a short intervention.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I had much of the lunch break to reflect on the matter, and I broadly agree that the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I do not doubt its good intentions, would not achieve anything remotely similar to that described by the hon. Member for Rochdale when he spoke to it. It is perverse and would require mandatory reconsideration. Even if the adviser and the individual were as happy with each other as they could be, there would have to be reconsideration, which does not make much sense. The problem is worse than the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested because putting in the word “reasonable” and agreeing to an action plan with all the terms on the side of the individual, and then saying further that any sanctions must already be agreed by the individual would, by accident or design, water down conditionality to the point of perversity and would offer nothing of substance to the Bill.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Does the Minister accept that the Government made much in the Green and White Papers about personalised conditionality and a personalised agenda? Does he agree that lack of a legal right for a claimant to have their case reconsidered runs totally contrary to that? The Bill has 86 provisions for which regulations will specify what will be implemented. Does he accept that what might be defined as a reasonable request for reconsideration could be subject to yet more regulations?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No. The hon. Gentleman misses the point, and the import of “made” versus “shall”. He would condemn everyone to reconsideration whether or not that was requested. We have said collectively until we are blue in the face that this is about rights as well as responsibilities, and about individuals establishing a relationship with their personal adviser that is in their mutual best interests. The direction is not one way, with imposition from the Jobcentre Plus personal adviser, nor is it one way in the other direction. Although it seems that using the word “made” would be radically different from using “shall”, I concur with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that that would not achieve what the hon. Member for Rochdale wants. The hon. Member for Rochdale can reconsider the matter and try to come up with something that gets to where he wants to be, but his amendment does not do that.

Given that interplay, I say as gently as possible that amendment 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, also would not do that. The amendment would remove the words “in prescribed circumstances”, but the prescribed circumstances do not refer to the individual, the relationship or anything that we have discussed. They refer to the prescription of those from the wider population of lone parents to whom the circumstances refer. I do not understand what the amendment would achieve.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The purpose of the amendment is not to take out the power to prescribe circumstances, but merely to elicit information from the Government about how they propose to use this power. As such, it is a probing amendment.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

None the less, the amendment would not achieve what I think the hon. Gentleman wants it to achieve. I accept that the amendment is probing, but the prescribed circumstances refer specifically to individuals, and the thrust of the amendment is to make mandatory on all lone parents, regardless of their circumstances, a conditionality regime to which, as we discussed this morning, we are quite deliberately referring only specific subsets. This is almost Freud gone mad. Anyone with children would be caught, without prescription, under the clause as the hon. Gentleman would amend it, including those with young babies. I do not think that that is what he intends. We had this discussion in our previous sitting and I would ask that amendment 11, probing or otherwise, be withdrawn, and that the Committee gently ignores the others.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am happy to accede to the Minister’s request. I hope that I made it sufficiently clear that amendment 11 was a probing amendment. We are not trying to take this out of the Bill; we wanted either to elicit more information or to speed the process along. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 2, page 7, line 5, after ‘circumstances’, insert

‘including regard to that person’s mental health and any specific mental health needs that person may have’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 50, in schedule 1, page 53, line 30, after ‘failure’, insert

‘including demonstrating that failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health problem’.

Amendment 51, in schedule 1, page 59, line 18, at end insert

‘and circumstances where it can be demonstrated that a person has left employment voluntarily because of an employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning their mental health problems.’.

Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 60, line 39, after ‘account’, insert

‘, including that person’s mental health and any specific mental health needs that person may have’.

Amendment 78, in clause 8, page 14, line 11, at end insert

‘including regard to that person’s mental health and any specific mental health needs that person may have.’.

Amendment 87, in clause 24, page 34, line 28, after ‘cause’, insert

‘(which shall include situations where the failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health problem)’.

New clause 5—Entitlement to tailored employment and career support—

‘(1) All new ESA claimants and existing Incapacity Benefit claimants who are migrated to ESA, who have a diagnosed mental health problem which impacts on their ability to undertake work, will be entitled to an assessment carried out by, or linked to, Access to Work to determine what reasonable adjustments may improve the likelihood of retention should they find employment. This assessment must be carried out before the claimant may be compelled to undertake any compulsory work-related activity.

(2) The assessment will include evidence gathering from agencies responsible for a person’s employment support and for the provision of health services where appropriate and must include at least one interview with the claimant themselves.

(3) Any reasonable adjustments, recommended by the assessment, will be funded through Access to Work and will be available to any employer wishing to employ the claimant. Available funding for reasonable adjustments will be communicated to employers by a claimant’s employment adviser and will be transferable to a new employer in the event that the claimant moves jobs or employers.

(4) The assessment will be reviewed regularly and/or when the claimant moves jobs or employers to identify any changes to the adjustments required by the claimant.’.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I wish to speak to amendments 47, 50, 51 and 52, all of which I tabled. They deal with certain categories of people with mental health needs.

Any direction relating to specific work-related activity should take account of a person’s mental health and concurrent needs. This relates to our issues with the qualifications of Jobcentre Plus staff and the way in which they will make directions when making decisions regarding work-related activity. Employment advisers should take a person’s mental health into account when drawing up action plans or programmes of activity, and amendment 47 has been designed to protect claimants with mental health problems from being asked to undertake an activity that might be harmful to their health.

Amendment 50 relates to schedule 1. Although we had this discussion earlier, it is clear that mental health illnesses fluctuate for many people. It would be wrong if an individual’s fluctuating mental health was not treated as a good cause for not attending a work-focused interview. We wish to put protection for people in that position in the Bill. Were such a person to fail to attend an interview, one of the good causes accepted without argument should be that that person has a fluctuating mental health illness—we think that that is reasonable. We would expect the personal adviser to accept that and thus not to consider applying sanctions.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Although I anticipate that the Minister will say that we cannot put anything extra in the Bill to cover issues such as mental health, because there are so many other things that we could put in, does the hon. Gentleman agree that health and mental health issues are really worth underlining in the Bill?

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I agree. As I said this morning, concerns have been raised about various aspects of the Bill and its overarching scope. It is important to place safeguards in the Bill so that it is clear to both the claimant and the personal adviser what is a just cause. It is reasonable that we should do that.

Amendment 51 would insert a provision about reasonable adjustments into schedule 1. We support the fact that more and more people who were previously consigned to incapacity benefit will be supported back into employment. However, there must be an onus on the employer to take into account that person’s needs. There have been circumstances in which someone has returned to work and found that the support that they were promised did not materialise. We believe that it is reasonable for someone not to continue an activity because of an employer’s failure to provide the support that was promised. That might happen because the employer did not, in all good faith, appreciate what the support might involve. If we are considering people with a fluctuating mental illness, it is difficult to prescribe the support that someone will need, because that will vary over time and due to circumstances. If an employer is not willing to accept that, it might be a reason why a person is unable to continue an activity. We believe that it is reasonable to accept that that can be a reason why a person has had to withdraw from an activity, which is why I tabled amendment 51.

Amendment 52 would insert into schedule 1 the words

“including that person’s mental health and any specific mental health needs that that person may have.”

Again, decisions to access sanctions against the claimant should take account of a person’s specific mental health needs. The Bill allows employment advisers to sanction claimants who have failed to comply with their requirements by withdrawing benefits. There needs to be a very specific safeguard to ensure that a person will not be penalised if they fail to comply because of a particular illness. That comes down to the fact that there needs to be an understanding of the fluctuating nature of mental illness and how although, in an ideal world, we can set up one set of circumstances, a person might need a totally different level of support two or three months down the line. We want to get some sort of commitment from the Government that if it is not possible to take account of mental illnesses that may affect someone’s ability to undertake tasks, there will not necessarily be a sanction and a loss of a benefit. We believe that that is the right way forward.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I shall speak in support of amendment 78 and new clause 5. Amendment 78 largely covers the same ground as that addressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale. It would insert into clause 8 a provision with regard to someone’s

“mental health and any specific mental health needs”.

Clause 8 is titled “Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity”. It specifically relates to the reasonableness of directions that may be given by the Secretary of State and says that, when judging whether such a direction is reasonable, the Secretary of State or someone acting on his behalf should take into account the person’s mental health or their mental health needs.

We tabled the amendment to probe the extent to which the Government’s regulations on work activity will adequately cover someone’s health requirements. It was also tabled specifically to consider the ability of Jobcentre Plus staff and to determine whether, following the training that they will get, they will have the skills necessary to take into account someone’s mental health needs themselves, or whether they would refer them to a professional who was able to do so. I should like some clarification on that.

Mind kindly supplied a briefing note in which it suggested new clause 5, which I thought was worth tabling. I do not propose to press it to a Division, but I want to explore Mind’s ideas about Access to Work. The Minister will know that Access to Work may be used by someone once they get into work, when their employer can have an assessment done to see what help they need. However, under the new clause, prior to getting employment, a new ESA claimant, or an existing incapacity benefit claimant with a mental health problem who had moved to ESA, would be able to get an assessment through Access to Work to determine what reasonable adjustments they might need to improve their ability to get a job and, importantly, to retain it. That assessment would have to be carried out before that claimant was compelled to undertake any compulsory work-related activity. It would be possible to fund any reasonable adjustments recommended in the assessment through Access to Work, and that would give an employer the confidence that the cost attached to taking on a person with adjustments to their working routines, which might affect the way that they were going to employ them, would be funded. That would be a change to the way in which Access to Work works. I want to test the Government, to see whether they think such a proposal is worthy of exploration, and to find out the direction in which they might be going.

Access to Work recently had its budget doubled, which we welcomed. The present Minister for disabled people, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, and his predecessors have said that Access to Work is one of the Government’s best-kept secrets and that they do not want it to be so. New clause 5 might be a way to improve the situation.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I would not necessarily include new clause 5 in what I am about to say, but, in essence, we are being asked to provide for things that are already provided for. We already have provisions to ensure that a person’s health is always considered, so there is no need for that to be prescribed in the Bill. We say clearly that a person’s circumstances have to be taken fully into account, and I am at a loss to know what definition of “person’s circumstances” would preclude a consideration of either physical or mental health.

It is important that the array of conditions is taken into account. However, I caution the hon. Member for Rochdale about—I hesitate to use the phrase “undue specificity” again—specifying what he requests in the Bill. People might feel good if they get those words into the Bill, but they would not do the individuals on whom the policy is focused any favours. Allowing the flexibility for a broad range of definitions of people’s circumstances to be put in regulations will afford the greatest possible breadth of definition. I am comfortable with the Bill as it stands, because we want that flexibility in regulation, not least because regulations can be adjusted far more easily than primary legislation. If we went down the road of undue specificity and put too much in the Bill, but later found that we had left something out, we would have to wait for another legislative vehicle before we could alter the primary legislation.

Paul Rowenindicated dissent.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is a matter of fact, unless he wants a social security Bill every year, regardless of the circumstances, with all that would mean for what we are trying to do to reform and simplify this area. Things should be as straightforward as possible. There is broad consensus among Committee members about the need for flexibility, but we cannot have flexibility while we are trying to define such things in the Bill.

I accept the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East about mental illness, and I accept what others have said about having due regard to people’s experiences of domestic violence, or their need to help members of their family, and the barriers that such circumstances might present to work-related activities or any part of the journey. There are, quite deliberately, a host of personal circumstances that can and should be taken into account, but we do future users no favours by over-defining things.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean has recognised that we have doubled the Access to Work moneys. He will know that we are piloting flexibility around Access to Work—in London, in the first instance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it is one of our best-kept secrets, but going down the road of new clause 5 would be a tad impractical simply because it would be impossible to determine what reasonable adjustments someone might need until one knew what job they were going to do, so there is almost a circular deficiency to the argument. Do I accept that there should be some greater flexibility regarding Access to Work? Yes, I do, and we will look with interest at what the London pilot comes up with. For such a potentially vulnerable group, we should, in all practical circumstances, do what works. New clause 5 might create extra bureaucracy and add significant costs, so while the idea and sentiment behind it are certainly worth exploring, I would not put it in the Bill. I shall therefore rather tediously—I might change the record once or twice at a later stage—ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

In saying that we are trying to over-specify, the Minister has not understood the problem. The Bill gives jobcentre staff huge powers, but does not specify the limits of those powers. We might get regulations that set some limits, but, if experience is anything to go by, much will be left to discretion. The amendments do not seek to prescribe the definition of mental health, a person’s circumstances in relation to mental illness, or the circumstances that might involve them having to leave employment. They say merely that those things should be accepted as just causes under the Bill. I make no apologies for tabling such amendments. In our view, recognising such things in the Bill would be a vital protection for vulnerable people.

We are not saying that the amendments would define everything—they would not. I fully accept that regulations will specify the circumstances under which mental illness will be accepted as a just cause, but it is dangerous not to include such provisions in the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is defining things. If he were to put something in the Bill that was separate from regulations, with all that that implies, it would prevail over all other personal circumstances. That is precisely why we need to leave things general and flexible, which would be in the interests of the vulnerable people whom the hon. Gentleman seeks to help.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I refer the Minister to amendment 47, which would provide for having regard to a person’s mental health. I accept that that regard will come from a health professional. The amendment would not define mental illness in the Bill, but say that that must be taken into account. Regulations can set out the conditions under which a mental health condition would be regarded. I would have thought that reference to advice from a mental health professional should be the way forward.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are talking at cross purposes. This discussion has been helpful because the Minister has been able to explain to the Committee the direction that will be taken when his officials draft the regulations and he introduces them. To that extent, it has been helpful that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have tabled these amendments, because the Minister has been able to explain that mental health will be one of the important factors taken into account in the regulations. We are comfortable that that has been encompassed.

The Minister is right when he says that specifying in the Bill one set of circumstances, but not all of them, would create the danger of putting one ahead of the other, which I would not want. I would not want mental health needs to take precedence over other circumstances that might be equally important, and I think that that is how we square the circle.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and we have tabled amendments that deal with other areas of concern. However, on this issue, it is worth pressing the amendment to a Division.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 2, page 7, line 5, at end insert—

‘(aa) must be reasonable, having regard to whether the person has a learning disability and the nature of that learning disability;

(ab) must be reasonable, having regard to the adequacy of the support available to be provided to the person if they have a learning disability;’.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 76, in clause 8, page 14, line 15, at end insert ‘; and

(d) must take into account—

(i) any misunderstanding of the requirements to participate owing to the nature of a participant’s learning disability, and

(ii) the adequacy of support provided to any participant with a learning disability to ensure they understood the requirements placed upon them.’.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am about to make the point that my right hon. Friend the Minister made quite well in relation to undue specificity by raising another area that I think is enormously important. I am doing it because I specifically want to probe that the relevant regulations will take into account the specific needs of people with a learning disability. I would also like to welcome, in some respects, the document, that the Minister has provided for us, on the use of regulation-making powers. Some of the issues that I am raising are set out within that, which is reassuring. I also want to note the helpful exchange which took place at the third sitting of the Committee with the Minister and his officials. I will not, therefore, be going over that ground.

However, I am seeking reassurance that the needs of people with learning disabilities will be properly taken into account when directions are given about work-related activity. Along with their needs, proper consideration should be given to their need for support, whether support is in place, and whether it is adequate to enable them to undertake that work-related activity.

I am very supportive of the concept of personalisation, although not the use of that term. It needs to mean helping people in the way that is most helpful to them. That is complex in regards to people with learning disabilities; it means recognising their capabilities, alongside areas where they need help. In responding to these amendments, can the Minister for the South East, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford give me the reassurance that personal adviser will indeed be properly trained to identify those issues, to make proper assessments and ensure that people with learning disabilities are only directed to work-related activities that are reasonable as far as their own particular circumstances are concerned, and that they get the appropriate support that that individual needs to undertake those activities.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I welcome my hon. Friend’s amendments.

Following on from the previous set of amendments regarding people with a mental health issue, we are now talking about people with a learning disability. It is quite right that this Committee probes and asks questions about particular people for whom we want to ensure that we provide the support. We do not want to be in a position where people are unduly penalised for the wrong reason because someone, in working with them, misses their particular condition or is not particularly sympathetic. I am thus grateful for the opportunity to hopefully provide some words of reassurance to the Committee and to those following our proceedings.

We will set out provisions. There will be a thorough set of provisions in place to protect people with learning disabilities. That will ensure that the claimant understands the requirement of them and it will provide safeguards—if it emerges later that the claimant has misunderstood the requirement. A direction can only be issued as a last resort and must be suitable and achievable for the individual concerned. That is especially important if someone has a learning disability and requires specific support in order to undertake it.

As further reassurance for Members on this point, I have set the safeguards around making sure that the requirements of a person with a learning disability are appropriate. Jobcentre Plus advisers have a thorough training in dealing with customers with a range of diverse health conditions, including learning disability. Advisers working with employment and support allowance claimants are also provided with specialist advice from Department of Work and Pensions doctors, about the kinds of activities that would be appropriate for a person to undertake through the work-focused, health-related assessment.

Advisers working with employment and support allowance claimants are also provided with specialist advice from Department of Work and Pensions doctors, about the kinds of activities that would be appropriate for a person to undertake through the work-focused, health-related assessment. This assessment is completed as part of the medical assessment process at the start of the ESA claim. Every customer has the right to be accompanied to interviews by a carer or an advocate, to help them interpret and understand the advice and requirements being set out to them. It is also an important point that we would expect personal advisers, when assessing someone, to suggest or ask the individual if they wanted to bring along an advocate, a carer or adviser, if the personal adviser thought that individual would benefit in terms of understanding what was required.

As stated in both clauses 2 and 8, any direction to an activity would have to be reasonable, and must have regard for a person’s circumstances. Therefore, any activity that is directed by the adviser has to be appropriate to their capabilities and the circumstances in which they find themselves. If, for any reason, the claimant was directed into an activity which was felt to be inappropriate, or where they had not understood the requirements fully, the claimant could ask for the direction to be reconsidered. Again, I can anticipate my hon. Friend thinking “well, how would they know that this activity was inappropriate?” I refer back to the previous set of amendments which we discussed and say we are piloting these proposals. It is important that we review them and have regard, particularly, for people with learning disabilities, to make sure that they have the support and understand what we are trying to do to assist them.

All members of the Committee will endorse the sentiment I expressed in earlier remarks—we want to see a transformation. There is a pool of talent among people with learning disabilities who want to get a job, and we want to help them. It is reasonable for us to say that we need people to engage with us in order to make that possible. My hon. Friend will know that if someone is on ESA, then they obviously have had an assessment and support, but there are those people on JSA, where perhaps the learning disability will not be so profound—someone could miss that particular issue. We will keep that under review but we believe there are safeguards built in.

I do not think, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has said, that it is appropriate to have such detail on the face of the Bill. We will—as he has said and I will say—provide that in regulations. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley has found the document commissioned by my right hon. Friend helpful. Indeed, we hope all Committee members do. We do not want to stipulate support because, as we say, it is about tailoring to individual needs. I hope I can send a very clear signal about what the Government’s intention is, to help these particular people in finding employment—not having a punitive regime, that actually trips people up, rather than one that assists people to engage with someone. Ultimately, that is what we want. The sanction will be there, but we do not anticipate it being used a great deal. Certainly, from the pilots and the pathways to work programme it was used very infrequently. However, it does provide, in the right circumstances, a carrot-shaped stick in order for some people to engage.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank my hon. Friend for his words. It has been enormously important to get that information on record, so that it is clear what the Government’s intention is in relation to people with learning disabilities. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 7, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

Proposed new section 2F of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides that by direction, the Secretary of State may specify what is and what is not to be regarded as work-related activity in any individual case. Can I say at the outset that we welcome a personalised approach, tailoring directions to the individual concerned? We hasten to add that we need to see what this will mean in practice. That is the important question, as far as we are concerned.

However, subsection (3) of the proposed new section, relating to directions about work-related activity, contains a retrospective power for a direction of this nature—what is and what is not to be regarded as a work-related activity. It is a retrospective power to have effect from a time before the giving of the direction in the case where it varies or revokes a previous direction. I think I am on reasonably firm ground in saying that this is a retrospective power, because the notes on clauses admit that it may be so. Were a retrospective power to be granted, it would be important to pause for a moment.

That is not to say that we are opposing this tooth and nail, or are seeking a Division on it. We would be doing less than our duty of parliamentary scrutiny, though, if we were not to raise the question of a retrospective power, given the general approach toward those powers in the line long of authorities on them, and a possible European dimension on such powers as well.

We do feel that it is important, wherever a retrospective power is granted, to at least ask questions and seek to elicit more information. In this case, what we need to know from the Government is just how this retrospective power would be used. We note that it would be retrospective in an individual case. Under the terms of this power, it would be possible for an individual who had been carrying out what they believed to be work-related activity, to have a later direction made saying that it was not work-related activity after all.

As always in cases of retrospective legislation, there is an individual aspect to it: what individuals knew at the time, what they believed to be the case and subsequent variations, and the question of how fair that is to individuals. I do not want to make too much of that because it is a general point about retrospective legislation. I just feel that we need to give pause for a moment and ask the Government for more information about it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I dislike undue retrospectivity as much as I do undue specificity. I do take the broad thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but if we are to be, as we declared, as flexible as possible, then we need 2F(3) to sit with 2F(1) and 2F(2). There may be occasions where a person’s circumstances have changed, and the work-related activity they have been directed to undertake cannot be completed—because of the illness of a child, for example, or because the childcare has fallen through. Without the catch-all of proposed new section 2F(3), there could be an interpretation of the law that such a person should be sanctioned regardless. So, this is positive retrospectivity rather than negative. As a norm, the UK legal system would decry retrospectivity in the law.

Another example would be where, because of a change in circumstances, a person has agreed with their adviser to engage in activity that is not exactly the same as they were directed into, but which nevertheless was acceptable to the adviser as a suitable alternative. Again, without proposed new section 2F(3), the person could be penalised. This amendment would prevent a personal adviser issuing a revised direction to fit the acceptable activity already undertaken.

So by definition, and to keep up with potential changes in someone’s circumstances, there has to be that degree of retrospectivity. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, has already said, we do not want to sanction or punish people unduly, and we will want to use those powers in the Bill for sanctions as sparingly as possible. The process is much more about the help and support we can afford people rather than rushing to sanctions. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s points about retrospectivity, which I agree with, in this instance it is important to have that catch-all to afford the adviser the degree of flexibility which we all seek.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

The Minister was reaching the conclusion of his speech.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

And therefore I ask that the amendment be either withdrawn or, if pressed to a Division, resisted.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

As I hope that I have indicated already, this is a probing amendment and I shall seek the Committee’s leave to withdraw it on the basis that I have drawn some reassurance from the Minister’s entirely appropriate remarks. Having heard the Minister’s two examples, however, I am not entirely convinced by the aim. In the first example, he said that somebody’s ill health might prevent them from carrying out their original direction, but I am not entirely convinced that the aim of doing justice to that person could not be achieved by a simple variation rather than by a revocation—varying the terms of the order, so that the completed part stood but was varied to something more suitable to the person’s current health conditions. I am not sure that variation would not be a better way of dealing with it than revocation, when what was directed in the first place would no longer count because it would have been revoked. However, I draw reassurance from the Minister’s explanation of the intention—that, as far as the individual claimant is concerned, the provision is intended to be positive. In the light of his helpful remarks about that positivity and its effect on any subsequent interpretation of the provisions, should it come to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 23, page 33, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Again, amendment 13 is a probing amendment, whereby we simply seek clarification of some possible legal issues. The provision concerns contracting out to welfare to work providers and their legal position—where the Secretary of State has contracted out functions to an external provider.

Amendment 21 raises the same issues in relation to contracting out in jobseekers cases. Amendment 13 deals with contracting out of work-related activity matters. Broadly, proposed new section 2G of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 will enable the Secretary of State to authorise providers to carry out functions on his behalf, while proposed new subsections (7) and (8) concern the legal position of the Secretary of State and the provider. Proposed new subsection (7) appears to provide that anything done or omitted to be done by an authorised person is to be treated as being done or omitted to be done by the Secretary of State, so it appears that legal liability for what the provider does will rest with the Secretary of State. However, proposed new subsection (8) provides that that does not apply

“for the purposes of so much of any contract made between the authorised person and the Secretary of State as relates to the exercise of the function”.

We would like some clarification of the provision’s implications. For example, is it the Government’s intention that the Secretary of State can, by contractual terms, exclude himself from liability for the actions or omissions of the provider? Can he thus exclude himself from liability under the civil law? We raise that issue to seek clarification from the Government about what proposed new subsection (8) means. Proposed new subsection (7) says one thing but proposed new subsection (8) appears to cater for an entirely different circumstance and to go in the opposite direction. In case there is any question, this is a probing amendment, however. We seek clarification, we think it right to do so when there may be a legal issue and I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I understand the confusion. The Committee will know that these laws are written in something approximating English, but not quite English—we have to allow for appropriate distinctions. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that proposed new section 2G(7) provides that anything done or omitted to be done by an authorised person, or an employee of that authorised person, is to be treated as if done by the Secretary of State. It is terribly clumsy, but we still have to afford the Secretary of State the right to sue those who contract out for breach of contract, or any other aspect of contract law. The clumsy way of doing that is to say in subsection (7) that all of what can and should be done is actually the Secretary of State’s duty, and rightly and properly so, save for those contracted out subsequently and passed on to a contractor to do on behalf of the Secretary of State. That is terribly clumsy, but I think the import of them is to have the Secretary of State fully responsible for what are clearly his duties under a raft of previous social security legislation. Where, as in the two instances that the hon. Gentleman has alighted upon, there is a clear contractual obligation on a third party—where duties have been contracted out—there must still be scope for the Secretary of State, notwithstanding what subsection (7) says about his duties, to afford the proper contractual relationship with that other body in what is the normal contracting practice.

It is saying that here is the sum of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities and the Bill makes provision for part of that to be contracted out. We must reinvent and rebuild under contractual law the ability of the Secretary of State and the Government to sue or challenge, at the very least, the outside contractor for those elements that have been contracted out subsequently. Even the explanation is clumsy, which I understand, but the interplay between subsections (7) and (8) is important.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The Minister is doing a good job of giving an explanation of this. I invite his attention and, perhaps appropriately, his reflection, because it raises legal issues, on another aspect of this. That is the possible liability of the external provider to a claimant where the external provider may have been negligent in discharging his duties to the claimant. Would this serve to exclude the Secretary of State from liability for the same negligence where the external provider had been negligent to the claimant? While the claimant may have an action against the external provider, issues could arise if the external provider, through any circumstances, came to be in a position to be unable to meet any claim that was brought against him by the claimant. In those circumstances, would the claimant have a right of action against the Secretary of State, or does this serve to exclude it?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Just to add to the confusion, I am told by this magical process that enlightens Ministers every now and then that the claimant, even in those circumstances, would sue the Secretary of State, who, because of the interplay between subsections (7) and (8), could then go on to sue the provider.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has afforded me time to reflect on these matters, but I think that the original position that I presented of subsections (7) and (8) and their interplay being a clumsy way of making sure that the Secretary of State is still afforded appropriate contractual rights under contract law for those bits that have been contracted out. I believe that the circularity still endures—I will get back to the Committee if that is not the case—the duties lie with the Secretary of State. The circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman would mean, I think, that the individual would sue the Secretary of State and if there was any scope to, not least because of the existence of the part we are referring to, that would afford the Secretary of State the ability to sue the provider.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The Minister has said several times that this is a clumsy way of achieving this particular outcome. Is there a particular reason why it has been done like this, or is there some elegant way of achieving this that has somehow escaped him?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In my limited experience of this place, I have rarely found that English law will go for an elegant route when a clumsy route could take precedence.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am grateful to the Minister for his words. I was not trying to engage in any guessing game. My purpose was to raise a reasonable question for further reflection. The Minister has approached the matter in a reasonable way. I invite him to go away and reflect on it further. I am particularly thinking of the position of the claimant and the rights that they may have when they have suffered from negligence. On the basis that the Minister has said that he will reflect on this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3

Clause 7

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 7, page 13, line 12, after ‘effect’ insert,

‘following the presentation of a report concerning income support; and, such an order may not be made unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

Clause 7 deals with the abolition of income support and is part of the Government’s long-term commitment to simplifying benefits. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to abolish income support. In moving amendment 43, I am seeking to require him to present both a statutory instrument and report regulations that can be fully debated by both Houses before such a decision is taken. The question is why I am making such a request. As hon. Members are aware, income support as it currently stands is still available. It is a remaining benefit for carers, lone parents and women in the later stages of pregnancy. It is not subject to labour market conditions.

The Government have previously confirmed that carers will be entitled to continue to claim income support until there is a clear and detailed plan for the long-term reform of the benefits available to carers. We seek to probe the Government’s intentions for this clause, as we should not grant a wide-ranging power to abolish income support without first having in place a replacement allowance that has been properly debated. Something that pervades the Bill far too much is the granting of sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without any detailed reference to conditionality and without any redress or support for affected groups.

The amendment would mean that before income support was abolished—a power that the clause grants to the Secretary of State—there should be full discussion and agreement in both Houses of Parliament about the replacement allowance. It would clearly be wrong for ESA, as it is currently constituted, to be the replacement allowance. For example, under ESA, when someone is required to attend a meeting, that meeting cannot be deferred, but can be waived, and that is not a statutory measure.

We need to see the Government’s proposals in writing before income support can be abolished. I hope, and believe, that we can all agree a way forward that would provide carers with a better benefit and recognise the tremendous work that they do. Under the Bill, however, there could be a blanket abolition of income support before it had been replaced, and we should afford people the protection of a requirement that Parliament must approve any replacement before the Secretary of State may exercise the power to abolish it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman is right, but for the wrong reasons. He is wrong to suggest that the power is sweeping, as it is a single power to abolish a particular benefit, but he is right to say that there are issues to consider, including carers and the timing of such abolition. That is why we have made it clear that we would not introduce an order to abolish that benefit until there were no longer any groups that required it. That seems terribly straightforward; one would not abolish a benefit while people still required it. We have made it very clear that in proposing to abolish income support, we do not propose that people who get it should receive any less money or should be subject to requirements such as that they must look for work. The intention is to simplify and streamline the system without making it any less sensitive to people’s needs, and clause 7 does that appropriately. This measure, and other laws in regulation and statute, will prevail as people move off income support and on to other benefits.

For the same reason, I do not agree that there is any value in requiring a separate report, as the amendment suggests. By the time that such a report was produced, it would be very clear what arrangements had been made for each group of income support recipients, because we would not introduce an order until we were in that position. Also, there will probably be further consultation on at least some groups—certainly on carers—as I mentioned earlier. Any report would therefore simply be a formality saying that there were no longer any recipients of income support and that we were going to abolish it. That would be a complete waste of everyone’s time and would do no more than confirm something that would be apparent from a cursory reading of the relevant order.

The hon. Gentleman can and should be assured that there is no secret agenda to rush towards the abolition of income support without dealing with those extant groups that still require it, and no order will be forthcoming until we are at a stage when there are no recipients of a benefit that we seek to abolish.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that the replacement for income support for carers will be debated through consideration of regulations, and that if a new law has to be introduced, there will be an opportunity for proper scrutiny? It is all right saying that there will not be anyone claiming the benefit, but if there will be no opportunity to discuss the replacement benefit, what I am seeking through the amendment should be accepted.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In the strictest sense, there will not be a replacement benefit. What we are trying to do for carers in the way that I described earlier is to look radically at the whole approach to supporting them, including with regard to benefits, across the whole of the Government including, crucially, on social care.

I shall not give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about proper scrutiny without his defining what “proper” means in that context. At the very least, there will be plenty of scope for scrutiny through the Social Security Advisory Commission, at the least through the negative procedure, and potentially through the affirmative procedure. I am sure that there will be other times and opportunities when we will report in more detail for such scrutiny. As has been suggested, the importance of the role of carers in this country is far too important for the situation to be otherwise.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I am not totally happy with the Minister’s commitment, but we will see what happens. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 9

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I wish to speak about several issues relating to this aspect of the Bill. At the beginning, it is worth saying that my party supports the proposals in the Bill for a treatment allowance. That came out clearly in the evidence sessions, but I say it again for avoidance of doubt because the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has recently stated the opposite by rather mischievously taking a very short quotation from the former shadow Secretary of State and missing out important words that completely changed the meaning of the sentence.

I am making my remarks by way of ensuring that the proposals are properly questioned. Also, I want them to be successful, but I have some doubts, which are based on feedback about whether they will work from sensible practitioners in this area from whom we did not hear during the evidence sessions.

Claimants who are dependent on drugs are a real problem. The Minister highlighted a real issue, and I know from my own constituents, from people I have spoken to throughout the country and from the clear reaction of members on both sides of the Committee when we were listening to some of the evidence that it is an issue for all Members. For some, it is a problem in their constituencies.

The first thing that is worth discussing is treatment capacity, which came up a great deal during the evidence session. This is one of the areas that I want Ministers to clarify. When the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform was asked about it, we were talking about the number of problem drug users who were on benefits. The number that was floating around was 240,000. A concern was expressed about whether the capacity would be available if a significant number of those people were captured by the proposals and referred to drug treatment services. I think that I am accurately paraphrasing the Minister by saying that he pointed out that, in the initial stages, the focus would be on only heroin and crack users, because that was where the biggest problem was, so the whole drug problem would not be tackled.

However, if we consider the numbers concerned, there are approximately 330,000 problem drug users in England—they are the heroin or crack addicts. Two thirds of them are on benefits, but only half of those on benefits are accessing drug treatment. It seems that even if the Department focuses on the heroin and crack addicts who the Minister states are the priority, there are 267,000 problem drug users. Even if a relatively small percentage of those were to be dealt with each year, that would represent a significant increase in the number of users accessing drug treatment. I am not convinced that there will be the capacity to provide that treatment. There would be nothing worse than using the powers in the Bill to persuade or cajole benefit claimants to access treatment only to find that that treatment was not available. That would not help anyone at all.

The Minister rubbished it somewhat, but the evidence provided to the Committee by DrugScope about a response that it received from the Department of Health suggested that an increase in drug users referred through this process could be dealt with only by accelerating them in the queue ahead of those who had come to drug treatment voluntarily. The Minister needs to clarify that because that would not be satisfactory. It would not be helpful if those who had come forward for drug treatment of their own volition were moved down the queue so that people who were there because of a threat of sanction could be dealt with. The Minister needs to tackle the question of how many problem drug users he expects this process to deal with—the Department must have made an estimate—and what impact that will have on the available treatment services in England. In a moment, I will deal with some examples from Wales, where there are specific issues about the length of time that users have to wait to access treatment services. There was some discussion at the evidence session about the extent to which the Department is engaging with the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments to ensure that such services are available.

Another issue is the extent to which Jobcentre Plus advisers are the right people to be involved in this process. That partly concerns their skills and the training that they will have, but it also concerns the nature of the organisations that are best placed to engage with problem drug users.

I have received feedback from Turning Point, which runs a programme in Wales that helps some of these problem drug users to get back into work. The information that they gave to the Government’s consultation was that because Jobcentre Plus is a statutory body that handles the day-to-day delivery of benefits, in the minds of claimants, the disclosure of personal information such as the use of problem drugs to a Jobcentre Plus adviser would be implicitly linked to whether or not they got those benefits.

From the experience of Turning Point, a non-statutory body would engage with those users more successfully. For users who were parents, concerns would be linked not only with getting their benefits, but with whether a disclosure of problem drug use might lead to such a thing as their children being removed by social services. It believed that the likelihood of people making a disclosure to an independent adviser would be much greater than that happening to a statutory body responsible for benefit payments. Its experience from its progress2work operations was that its workers were referring people who were not previously known to treatment providers or known to be problem drug users. When the Minister thinks about how this programme will be implemented, it will be worth bearing in mind the extent to which Jobcentre Plus advisers would be engaged in it, or whether a significant proportion of this work could be more effective if it was delivered by a third party.

There are also some concerns about data protection. The clause contains proposals for information sharing between Jobcentre Plus and law enforcement agencies. Although the Bill contains safeguards to protect individuals from criminal liability as a result of the disclosures they make, there are still concerns about how that information is secured and transferred. The Minister will be aware, both from his previous roles and in his current one, about the importance of data security. It would be helpful if he covered some of those issues in his response.

The other matter that we touched on briefly in the evidence-taking session was exactly what the Minister means by “treatment”. I think that he said during that session that he was clear that the objective of treatment was to get someone off their drug habit, as opposed to just managing it. I ask about that because there are two issues involved. In the national treatment programme, a significant number of people—about 50 per cent.—appear to be having their drug addiction managed, as opposed to their getting off drugs. That may be a success from a criminal justice perspective—if they are on a programme where they are receiving a methadone prescription, that may deal with their need to commit crimes to fund that habit—but if they remain addicted to methadone, although that is less problematic than taking heroin, it does not mean that they are in a good, stable situation allowing them to get to get work or remain in work. I should like some understanding of the objective of the treatment that the claimant would be expected to undertake; is the objective to get those people off their drug habit, albeit recognising that that may take some time, or is it simply to manage that habit in the long term?

I have already mentioned the resources issues. We will see if the Minister can outline some of those. I should particularly like to understand what the Department thinks the likely outcome of this part of the Bill will be, including estimates of how many people will be referred to a provider in first few years and how well the programme will work.

Specifically, picking up the issue I mentioned in respect of Wales, I have data from Cardiff, which is effective as of this month, showing that the next person on the waiting list for a methadone prescription from the community addiction unit in the Vale of Glamorgan, for example, has been on the list since March 2008. That person has been waiting nearly a year for drug treatment. More than 500 people are on the waiting list in Cardiff. There is a fast-track system, but at the moment that is only for pregnant women. Conversely, the drug intervention programme has no waiting list, but all prospective clients must have been involved in the criminal justice system. There is clearly a resource issue there. Those involved in the criminal justice system can get treatment immediately, as it right and proper, but those who are not involved in the criminal justice system appear to be waiting for a significant period. Clearly, even if the Minister is comfortable about how this scheme will work in England, there are issues in the devolved parts of the UK that Ministers need to take into account when rolling it out.

I have covered the issues that I wanted to raise. We are supportive of the proposals. I am not challenging the nature of the proposals but I want to ensure that the Minister has thought through the details and the implementation and that they are as successful as we all wish them to be.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

We have great concerns about this clause, which grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers that will be reinforced by regulation, but does not prescribe the limits of some of those powers. Schedule 3 mentions some of the powers that are granted. In particular, paragraph 5(1) deals with where information may be obtained from. It grants Jobcentre Plus staff with the power to obtain information held by

“a police force...the probation service, or...any other such person as may be prescribed.”

We do not have in this country a statute of limitations stating what responsibilities and rights people have, but we are granting the Secretary of State sweeping powers to obtain information about someone’s health and wellbeing. Returning to the point that I made this morning, that seems to run counter to the NHS constitution under which the treatment that someone receives is fundamentally for them to decide and may be offered by the NHS.

Paragraph 2 of schedule 3 refers to “a substance-relate assessment” and specifies in great detail how that might proceed. Our view is that there is a much better way of doing that and that such detailed regulation is better dealt with in a health Bill rather than a benefits Bill. The two may be related, but I would be more confident if civil servants in the Department of Health specified who might be a suitable person than if a regulation drafted by the Department for Work and Pensions did so.

Insufficient thought seems to have been given to how the provision will work. The Minister said that there will be pilots and that the matter will be prioritised, but what discussion has taken place with colleagues in the Department of Health to decide how it will be implemented? In our view, the worst outcome would be that people who are already on the waiting list for treatment and are not receiving benefits or who are receiving benefits but are not in a targeted group will be moved down the list to accommodate someone whom the Bill determines should receive priority. That is iniquitous, and not the right way of going about the matter. During the evidence sessions, reference was made to voluntary schemes and a proper assessment of them. Why have we not had a proper assessment of what is already working and how it can be extended?

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned Wales. Services throughout England vary from region to region, and different health authorities have different levels of provision. What guarantee is there and what discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Health to ensure that if a policy is imposed on, for example, the north-west or the south-west, the resources will be available to implement it and that it will work?

We are concerned about this aspect of the Bill, and how it will work in practice, including civil liberties and the amount of information that can be obtained from various sources, but which may not be necessary to enable JCP staff to undertake the job with which they have been charged. It seems to us that that would be better dealt with elsewhere than in the Bill.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I would like to raise a few concerns about the clause. On the face of it, the proposal is attractive, because it is not a welcome thought that our taxes and welfare system are subsidising a life of addiction and perhaps even crime. However, serious questions must be asked, and I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean about whether the capacity is in place to support the proposals, and whether such an approach in itself will be ultimately successful.

On capacity, we heard from our evidence sessions that more than 200,000 drug addicts are currently in treatment, and the capacity just about keeps pace with that demand. These figures are easy to bandy around, so I shall ask the Minister to clarify them if not now then later. We also heard, however, that about 100,000 addicts currently draw benefits but are not in treatment. It is difficult to believe that the existing services will cope with such a big increase in demand without a big increase in resources. When the chief executive of DrugScope was questioned, he clearly made the point that it would be “extremely difficult” for the system to cope with any extra demand without an increase in resources. What estimate has the Minister or his Department made of how many extra drug addicts will require treatment as a result of the proposals? What will be the cost of that extra provision? And, where will the resources come from? I do not see any additional resources tagged on to the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware that it is all right putting such proposals in place, but that, if we do not create the capacity to deal with the envisaged increase in demand, the proposals will be almost worthless.

On the question of whether the general approach will be successful, all the evidence suggests that addicts will make progress with treatment only once they have resolved in their own mind to do so. Some addicts persist with their habit, despite it costing them their job, health, home or even their partner and their children, and despite the pain that that subsequently causes. The question that we as a Committee must ask ourselves is, are those people seriously going to take advice from, or respond to, a nice lady—[Interruption]—or gentleman sitting behind a jobcentre desk asking them to go for treatment? I have met many nice people in jobcentre offices, and they can be very tenacious, determined and gritty while being compassionate. However, they have only certain powers of persuasion, and when addicts have caused so much pain to themselves and, perhaps, others, and gone to such lengths to pursue their habit, one must question whether the policy will succeed. Indeed, the chief executive of DrugScope has said:

“There is no evidence that using benefit sanctions to compel problem drug users into treatment will be effective. Withdrawing benefits could perversely drive some people further away from the support they need, potentially impacting upon their families and wider communities”.

I suggest to the Minister that if people are forced into treatment that proves wholly ineffective, it at best wastes valuable time and resources and, at worst, delays the moment when they finally get serious about giving up or about re-entering work. Perhaps worse than that, such an approach risks diverting scarce and valuable resources from those who are more serious about giving up their habit. What evidence does the Minister have to suggest otherwise—that using benefit sanctions to force addicts into treatment will be effective? And, what measures will he put in place to ensure that resources are not diverted from where they are most needed and from people who genuinely want to give up their habit? I look forward to hearing his responses to those questions.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I have a lot of sympathy with a number of concerns that have been mentioned already. I will make a few points.

Do we have clear definitions of some of the terminology used in the Bill? One such term is “propensity to misuse”. How many people clearly have that propensity? How many do not? How many would be in a grey area? Even the word “dependent” needs to be defined. Most of us would probably feel that we could tell whether somebody was dependent on drugs or alcohol, but my understanding is that when scientific tests are taken on somebody, all they can tell is whether a drug is present in that person’s body, not whether they are a regular user. There may be other ways of doing that.

Can the Minister assure us that he will be working with the Scottish Government, within our national drugs strategy? That has changed in recent years from managing, as has already been mentioned, and just giving people methadone with or without support, and now includes tackling the drug problem that many people have. In Glasgow, and in other parts of Scotland, there is a real drug problem. None of us is running away from that or pretending that that is not the case.

There is an idea that, if savings are made through benefit reductions, those funds can go through back into the Scottish budget to give more support to drug users. This point has already been made but it is worth emphasising: many people on drugs are in need of help more than anything else. Many of them probably greatly regret that they are on drugs, but they need the motivation to come off. If they do not have that motivation, I am not convinced that a lot of sanctions are really going to help. Even if they do want to come off, DrugScope told us that we are talking seven or eight years for somebody to come off heroin, which is a serious length of time.

Finally, what happens to the children in families headed by drug addicts? I asked that question to Barnardo’s in the earlier Committee meeting and its chief executive seemed somewhat stumped by it. But we are also committed to tackling child poverty. How do we tie these in? If the family income reduces, does that mean that the children suffer? And where, in practical terms, does the family end up? Do they go on to steal? Are they dependent on their grandparents, who, on limited means, help in supporting the kids? Or does it just mean that the kids eat less?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr. Hood.

I welcome this debate. It is clearly on a very serious issue which affects many of our constituencies, particularly for the three members of the Committee who represent Glasgow seats, where we are all well aware of the damage that it causes. The debate is on the basis that we want to set up a new contract, between applicants on one side and the Government on the other, about where the responsibilities lie. The aim is to provide a more tailored package which adequately deals with the needs of people who suffer from drug misuse. Such people are moved much further away from the job market as a result of their drug misuse, which permanently affects their lifestyle. Against that background, we have decided that it is important that we first of all focus on those who have the most chaotic lifestyles. That is why we will initially target those using heroin and crack cocaine, because that is the group which causes the most harm to themselves, their families and society.

Every year the use of class A drugs costs society £18 billion in health and crime costs alone. Ninety-nine per cent. of that is caused by problem drug use. So it is appropriate that we target this group first, because it is the group with the most propensity to harm. But as a number of Members said this afternoon, it is also important that we carry out this pilot first and then roll out the service in a way that allows our health services to have the appropriate capacity to cope.

There have been record levels of investment in treatment for drug misuse in England, which has led to a large expansion in capacity and dramatic reductions in waiting times. Ninety-three per cent. of drug users are receiving treatment within three weeks of being assessed. The Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions have looked closely at likely numbers being referred into treatment from jobcentres, and we do not believe that capacity will be an issue, although we will monitor this very closely. We will have local drug jobcentre co-ordinators funded by the Department of Health and in post by spring this year. We will be keeping an eye on any potential pinch points and drawing those to the attention of the local drugs partnership.

The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse will be monitoring data on waiting times and the provisions of the Bill will be piloted, so that should problems with implementation occur pilots can be terminated, or the system delayed in rolling out countrywide, until these issues are resolved.

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned the issue of queue jumping. I can assure him that there is no question of benefit claimants queue jumping into treatment. If, on occasion, more people need a particular type of treatment than there are current places, it would be the job of the local drugs partnership to make decisions on the basis of clinical need, not the route to referral. We are quite clear about that.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I was interested to hear the hon. Lady’s comments about pinch points. Given the numbers involved and the estimates that came out of the evidence sessions, there could be up to 100,000 extra addicts looking for treatment. What happens if these pinch points do occur? What action will the Government take to resolve the situation? What measures will be in place to ensure that pinch points do not result in long delays?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

It is important that we work on a local basis, where we can consider the local capacity of drug services in the area. That is why we want the staff of the DWP and the Department of Health to work very closely together—if the pinch point is in England—to ensure that, if there is a pinch point, the appropriate steps are taken within jobcentres to make referrals out into the health service. We want to ensure that we do not end up in the position where there would be any significant increase in waiting times for treatment for any person who has come through the jobcentre route or any other clinician route. That is why it is important that there is a degree of local control and management rather than an entirely centralised system. That is why we will be appointing co-ordinators to deal with that.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

If the hon. Lady cannot answer this question now, then she could perhaps come back later, but it is no good saying that pinch points will be monitored locally and their effect can be minimised. If we are talking about getting anywhere near the figures suggested in the evidence sessions, we are not talking about pinch points; we are talking about, perhaps, an overloading of the system, at least in certain areas. What specific measures will the Government take to ensure that they can cope with that? I am talking about possible additional resources being required here, because we heard in the evidence sessions that existing capacity is only just keeping up with demand, before this extra demand—we think—comes into play. What extra resources will the Government commit to this to ensure that this does not become a major issue?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The position in England is a very healthy one: the average wait for referrals is three weeks. For those of us in Scotland, we are waiting for up to 52 weeks; we would love to be anywhere close to what there is in England. There has certainly been no lack of commitment by this Government in putting resources into drug treatment here in England.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, however; it is the very reason why we are going to pilot this over a two-year period, and why we will report back to Parliament on any successes or problems that may occur. It is also why we have included a sunset clause in these provisions—so that Parliament will have another opportunity to consider the terms of the pilot and whether it has been a success. This gives a degree of reassurance that, as a Government, we will have to meet the demand, but we also have to make sure that we roll out the demand in a way that is manageable—not only on a national scale but also in terms of local health services. We are very keen to ensure that that is the case.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The Minister said that the pilots in England would run over a two-year period. When the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform was pressed on this in the evidence session, he said it would take that length of time to get the provision of treatment services in Wales and Scotland to a point at which a pilot in those two parts of the United Kingdom was a meaningful prospect.

Mr. McNultyindicated dissent.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The Minister is shaking his head, but in the third sitting he said that

“there has been discussion with both Scotland and Wales. We think that it is right to pilot throughout the UK, rather than just in England”.

He then went on to say that

“clearly we do not want to pilot in a situation where there are substantial waiting lists for treatment. We need to work with colleagues over the next couple of years to get to a stage at which a pilot in a Welsh or Scottish context will have some meaning and the provision of treatment will be there.”——[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 87, Q155.]

It sounds as though we will be running pilots over the next two years in England. Given what I said about the waiting lists in Wales and what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and colleagues on both sides have said about the position in Scotland, a significant period of time will probably have to elapse before it is possible to run pilots in Scotland and Wales. That may be sensible, but it would be helpful to know if that is what the Department is currently planning.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I was about to turn to the issue of the roll-out of this programme in the devolved Administrations.

We are working very closely with the devolved Administration in Wales. We appreciate that they have issues of capacity, and as in England we do not want to burden health services in a way that causes additional stress. We are still hopeful that we will be in a position at some stage—not initially, but at a later stage—to introduce the programme in Wales.

We also continue to have discussions with the Scottish Government regarding their proposals. We were initially advised that they had severe problems of capacity. They then raised objections regarding what they say is unethical, but I will come to that later when I deal with the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East. At the present time, it is clear that they do not have capacity. They do not have an anti-drugs strategy. We do not have a time scale for when they might reduce the waiting times and we do not know what percentage of extra people would be needed to assist. Therefore, we have a problem with that particular point.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Is it not the case that the Scottish Government have indicated that they hope to have much improved times within two years?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

That might well be the case. I understand that the Scottish Government initially promised a 20 per cent. increase in their manifesto. According to their justice budget, their spending is only up 14 per cent. However, if we look at the number more closely, the apparent increase is only 1.9 per cent average in real terms over the next three years. They have also failed to set up the drugs commission, which they promised. There is no target in their strategy for increasing the number of people receiving drug misuse treatment, they have dropped the previous Administration’s target of increasing the numbers in treatment by 10 per cent. and there is no target for waiting times. Unfortunately, the story there is not very positive, but we continue to work with the Scottish Government. We are surprised that they now want us to wait until the pilots have been carried out in England because they are not slow to point out that there are always differences with the devolved Administrations, which is the very reason why we want the pilots—so that we can test the provisions against the different provisions and services that are available in Scotland. I hope that they will use the opportunity to reconsider that because it would be very much in the interests of their own constituents.

Let me return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean. He mentioned the issue of the jobcentre staff and the type of training with which they would be engaged. The role of the personal adviser will be to judge whether there are reasonable grounds for believing a person is a problem drug user. We will be issuing guidance to staff on how to assess whether there are such reasonable grounds. We are certainly not expecting them to make any medical judgments; that must be left to specialists and will be dealt with through our contacts with the NHS. Staff will be provided with guidance on how to spot the possible signs and behaviours linked with drug misuse and it will be drawn up in conjunction with the NTA. The new Jobcentre Plus drugs co-ordinators will also have a role in raising awareness among all staff about drug misuse, including the difficulties faced by drug users in dealing with the requirements of the benefit system. Sadly, Jobcentre Plus staff are not unused to dealing with drug misusers, so they already have knowledge of that particular client group, but we want to ensure that they work closely with the Department of Health regarding awareness.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned data protection. Any provisions regarding the sharing of information will be subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. He also asked about treatment and what it involves. Treatment will be medically determined by specialists and will be part of the rehabilitation plan, but will not be the only part of it, because we are looking at giving advice on soft skills, debt, housing and skills training, all of which might form part of the rehabilitation package. We will not force people to take invasive treatments, and their consent will be required for such treatments. If methadone is prescribed as a potential treatment for their condition, their consent will be required in relation to the standard conditions of the NHS charter.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

When he gave evidence to the Committee, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform made it clear that the priority, in the pilots, were heroin and crack cocaine users, of whom approximately 240,000 are on benefits. Does the Department have any idea, from its research and evidence, of the kind of treatment required to get someone to a position where their problem drug use is no longer a barrier to work? The point that I am driving at is one that I alluded to earlier: does the evidence suggest that, for most heroin or crack cocaine users, the barrier to working will be substantially reduced when they use a substitute such as methadone, or do they have to be completely off drugs to work? That is not clear to me, and I wonder whether the Department has a view on that.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

We appreciate that coming out of drug use can take a long time. Our aim with rehabilitation plans is to stabilise people’s condition so that they are sufficiently able to engage with labour market activity. That might mean that they are still on methadone, or are coming off it gradually, because it can take some time to come off. We will work closely with employers, through local employment partnerships, to find job opportunities and give guaranteed interviews and work placements to people who have gone through that kind of rehabilitation plan, so that there will be an outcome for them at the end of the day. People will not necessarily be totally off drugs when they re-enter the standard JSA regime.

The hon. Member for Rochdale was concerned about sharing information with the police force and probation service. Those details are still being discussed with our colleagues in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, but the regulations will provide for information sharing that is proportionate to our aims. Many people who suffer from heroin and cocaine use will have been through the criminal justice and prison systems, and might already be in a rehabilitation programme as part of their probation programme. It is important that we have relevant and correct information from the criminal justice system to ensure that we are co-ordinated and are aware of what is happening under both the DWP and criminal justice systems.

Information from the probation service will include details of individuals who are subject to rehabilitation requirements as part of a community sentence. Such people will already be receiving drug treatment, and we will want to ensure that they are included in the programme. Information from the police is likely to include details of people who have tested positive for drug use when arrested, have been charged with offences or have been referred for a required assessment. Information from prisons will include details of people who have recently left prison. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to consider and approve regulations before they are put in place.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

On prisons, may I make a helpful point? This issue came up when I visited the progress2work operation run by Turning Point in Cardiff. Rather than simply have information about people who have recently left prison, it might help if the Department got that information in advance. One thing that has come through very clearly to me is that if there is no arrangement in place for someone’s housing and work situation as they are leaving prison, but preferably before they leave, and if they go back to where they used to live, they end up associating with the same people and quickly getting back on to drugs. That not only spoils their employment opportunities but, if they have been off drugs in prison, it can lead to their dying or becoming seriously ill. Notwithstanding concerns about information sharing, it would be better to have information from prisons before or as soon as those people leave. That would join them up with this type of programme so that they do not fall through that gap.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point. It is important that people coming out of prison—particularly after a substantial period and if they have already been in a drugs programme—do not start to take the drugs available on the street, or they could be in risk of their lives. It is important that we have a system that manages to catch people so that they do not fall into holes. We need co-ordination between prison and probation services, health services, and housing agencies in terms of debt advice, because one or two issues in that package can mean the difference between someone managing to cope and someone falling through.

In terms of drug treatment, the figures show that 83 per cent. of those in treatment are recorded receiving effective treatment that has a long-term positive impact. In addition, 93 per cent. of those assessed as requiring drug treatment are able to access it within three weeks. That is critical because the scientific evidence is clear that putting people into treatment is the best possible way out of drug misuse.

The hon. Member for Rochdale involved himself in an argument that I found difficult to follow about why, if we put a piece of legislation into a health Bill, it would be different in essence—although the terminology might be the same—from one that we put into a Bill on welfare reform. He creates artificial barriers, which we are trying to take down. When someone leaves prison or hospital after taking a drug overdose, they do not necessarily distinguish between a health Bill and a welfare reform Bill; they need help, and that is what the Bill intends to provide. It is not about a punitive regime: it is about a regime that takes people off JSA standard conditions and puts them on to a treatment programme that is far more appropriate for the condition in which they are in. I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, East mentioned the question of working with the Scottish Government. I have said that we are more than happy to work constructively with them. I bring to his attention one scheme on which we could agree. That was mentioned in yesterday’s Heraldand it suggests that the Scottish Government have used the example that we are trying to use, but in the criminal justice system; it is called the persistent offenders programme.

A study into the first year of that programme found that serial offending by people involved in shoplifting, housebreaking and prostitution was cut by almost 30 per cent. in four of Glasgow’s police divisions. The programme staff identify the most prolific offenders, door-knock them and give them the choice of signing up for drugs and alcohol rehabilitation or being targeted by officers. Sergeant Andy Brown of Strathclyde police said:

“We then monitor how well people are doing. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s about getting people at the right time—in that wee window when they’re ready to accept help.”

One of the applicants on the scheme said:

“Within half an hour they had sorted me out with a methadone programme and I got a worker who would come out to see me every week.”

I think members of the Committee may be somewhat perplexed that if someone has a continuous criminal record and is a drug misuser, that person has an entitlement to instant treatment. However, if someone has the misfortune of being a drug user but does not have a serial criminal record in Scotland, that person might wait up to 52 weeks for treatment care.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

When my hon. Friend next talks with her counterparts north of the border, could they look at the case she has mentioned and see if we can roll it out as another trial in England? It sounds excellent, and in a city like Glasgow we need all the help we can get.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I am happy to speak to the Scottish Government at any point about this particular scheme. I very much welcome that pragmatic, sensible and caring approach. That is exactly what we are trying to replicate in the welfare reform system.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I also read the article as I came down on the train yesterday. I think it highlights this balance between compulsion and encouragement; would the hon. Lady agree? It does seem from the words she read out that there was very much an element of choice and an element of people wanting to go into these things. That is very much the emphasis. I am a wee bit disappointed by her tone; it seems combative with the Scottish Government. Would it be possible, while not throwing away the principles that the UK Government hold, that there might be a willingness to tweak things a bit in order to get on with the Scottish Government?

Finally, does the hon. Lady also agree that the point is made that people have been taken off crime—I am sure we would all agree that this is a good thing—but the danger of cutting benefits for such drug users is that we end up pushing people back into crime?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s experience of police is in Glasgow, but when you get a knock at the door saying you are going to be targeted or else you will enter the rehabilitation programme, I would say that it is a strong stick, and fairly stark. However, it is clearly one that has worked.

It is only fair that there is another avenue of opportunity—not only when people come out of prison or are facing another charge, but when they present themselves at the Jobcentre Plus office and are clearly having problems with drug misuse. Because it is a contract between citizen and state—no one forces anyone to apply for the benefit, but those who do apply have to take responsibilities—we try to offer people individual support and a treatment plan that is appropriate to their needs. Actually, scientific evidence shows that this is the best possible way to get people off the drugs, out of a life of crime and into a situation where they can properly support their family and children. If a person’s life is so chaotic that they cannot even sign on to a rehabilitation programme, it prompts the question whether they are the appropriate person to look after children. Incidentally, our experience also shows that people who have a chaotic lifestyle are not able to cope with the standard JSA regime, and very often can come off the rails. That is why we want to offer them a better deal.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I thank the Minster for generously giving way again. Would she agree with me—I am trying not to be too party political—that the whole question of where the children stay is incredibly difficult? We do not have a lot of success in Glasgow—I stand to be corrected elsewhere—with the council putting people into children’s homes or short fostering care and so on. We should be reluctant to take children away from their parents.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I entirely agree. That is why we need to encourage people to go on to rehabilitation plans and to take treatment, because it is the best way to help them and their families.

Schedule 3

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

I have one question relating to schedule 3 which the Minister may be able to answer. In schedule 3, paragraph 2, you introduce schedule A1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995. In paragraph 2, you establish a good principle in relation to those benefit claimants who are looking for, or having to go through an assessment—that this should only be done where there is a reasonable view that they are drug abusers. However, when we come to the first part of that—undertaking the initial questions—it is clear from page 48, paragraph 65 of the regulation book you provided this morning that you are already making a distinction between JSA claimants—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word “you”. That refers to the Chair.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

The Minister has already put it down to my youthful membership of the House.

The Minister, in paragraph 165, is already making a distinction between JSA claimants, for whom regulations will require that they answer questions at the discretion of a personal adviser, and ESA claimants, for whom it is mandatory. Would the Minister explain why there is a difference between the two?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

Obviously, the JSA is assessing whether people are actually ready for work, while the ESA system is assessing how their health condition affects their ability to work. The question was raised as that is specifically a health-related benefit. We could have a case where a recreational drug user presents him or herself for JSA—under the standard JSA conditions that would not necessarily be a health barrier to their actively seeking work. Due to the different criteria used, there has to be an element of discretion in JSA. However, in ESA we have to assess the entire health condition because people may have multiple issues—they may have mental health issues or physical disabilities as well as the drug use—which is why we need to look at all of the health conditions that affect them so that we can make an assessment under ESA.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. In both the assessment and the questions, the second part of the reason for asking those questions is the same regardless of the benefit a person may be on. That is that

“any such dependency or propensity is a factor affecting their prospects of obtaining or remaining in work.”

Even where one has a JSA claim, the assessment may be that they are nearer work than an ESA claimant. That element still comes into the assessment and does not justify in my mind the difference between the two.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

As I said, JSA is not specifically a health-related assessment, whereas ESA is. It is important with ESA that all relevant medical conditions are disclosed, so that a proper assessment can be made by medical advisers. Following that assessment, when decisions are made about who carries out the treatment and whether the person consents to invasive treatment, the same rules would apply.

Clause 10

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

If I may, I should like to address a few remarks to clauses 10 and 11, both of which deal with the contributory conditions for JSA and ESA. It would save time if I could speak to both.

These clauses amend the existing legislation so that new claimants, who would normally have to have paid, or be treated as having paid, 26 weeks of class 1 national insurance contributions in one of the last two years prior to the claim, could qualify for ESA. In the July 2008 Green Paper, the Government said:

“We will retain existing protections that allow disadvantaged groups such as carers and young disabled people to qualify for ESA.”

I seek an assurance from the Minister that that still applies. In the impact assessment an assessment was given that there would be approximately 20,000 fewer people claiming ESA and 5,000 fewer people claiming JSA by 2013-14. I should like to ask the Minister what will happen to those people. What will they be claiming instead of the contributions? Do we have a guarantee that they will not be losing income? The Child Poverty Action Group said in its response to the Green Paper:

“The proposals on reforming the contribution conditions will reduce the number of claimants who qualify for contributory ESA and JSA. Those who find they no longer qualify will either have reduced income or be reliant on the means-tested element of either benefit.”

What estimate has been made of those 25,000 people who may not submit a claim? Has any calculation been done to say what the impact is in terms of their losing income? Does the assurance that was given in the Green Paper about disadvantaged groups still apply?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Minister?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is very kind of you to invite me to speak to the Committee, Mr. Hood, but I was not going to. I have spent the whole day giving assurances and guarantees that are already extant and I am getting fed up with it.

Clause 12

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 12, page 16, line 43, leave out subsection (b).

The amendment would remove the adult dependency increase for carer’s allowance. The proposal in the Bill will allow the removal of adult dependency increases for the state pension from 2010. Existing claimants will continue to receive the adult dependency increase, but that will be phased out from 2010 to 2020. What effect will that have on those affected by the change? The impact assessment says that some carer’s allowance customers will receive £30.20 per week less in benefit income than they would under existing rules. That is £1,570 per year for 17,400 people currently receiving adult dependency increases. About half of the new claimants would also receive income support or pension credit. The Government say that carers who lose their adult dependency increases in 2020 would potentially see a reduction in their income if they were not receiving IS or pension credit. However, the Government say that they are committed to ensuring that future support will be tailored to meet the needs of individuals.

I know that the Minister may think that he is getting fed up of having to give assurances. When I dealt with a statutory instrument a few weeks ago, I learned that an assurance was given by the Minister during the last welfare reform Bill that those on contributory ESA schemes would not lose out. That ESA scheme was introduced last October, no changes have been made, and those people now have a reduced income. So I believe that it is a fair question to ask: given that there will be a loss of income and that 17,400 people are affected, the Minister should place it on the record, and hopefully act on it and ensure that these people do not lose out.

Mr. McNultyrose—

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Sit down, Minister. He did not want to do all those assurances but now he seems keen to do another one.

I do not want to support the amendment. I just have some questions for the Minister; I am not asking for assurances. The justifications for getting rid of the adult dependency increases for carer’s allowance are not primarily based around saving money, although they do. They are primarily based around recognising the changes to assumptions about family life that were in place when this element was introduced in 1948. Looking at the list of justifications, it is not about saving money. Given that the Government estimate a net annual saving from abolishing adult dependency increases for carer’s allowance, and taking account of compensating increases in means-tested benefits—£3 million in 2010-11, rising to £17 million in 2014-15—it would be interesting to know whether they plan to use any of those savings for those who will, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, lose out.

The Government have acknowledged that some households will lose out. The Department’s view is that those on lower incomes will receive additional support in their means-tested benefits, but it is not entirely clear whether the Government expect that to be full compensation, and it does not take account of those who are not on means-tested benefits. It would be interesting to know whether the Department believes that there is any way of compensating them in a different way that would be simple and straightforward, or whether it is just one of those things that to make the system simpler some people must lose out.

My second question concerns the effectiveness of the information that is given to carers about the change. The Government argue that the negative impact of abolishing the adult dependency increases for carer’s allowance can at least be mitigated by ensuring that adequate information is available in the run-up to the change, and that there is greater awareness of income support and pension credit to ensure that those on lower incomes take advantage of those. It would help if the Minister would tell the Committee what arrangements are in place, or are planned, to ensure that carers who receive carer’s allowance are given the information and that it is made as easy as possible for those who lose out to receive extra support from income support or pension credit, acknowledging that the complexity of both benefits and the fact that they are means-tested means that a significant number of people who are entitled to them do not claim them.

If the Government put in place a good regime, at least those on lower incomes will be compensated. How many people will lose out and will not be compensated because they are on lower incomes and will receive other means-tested benefits, and what arrangements does the Department have in place, or will it put in place to ensure that people are fully informed about the change?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fully take on board the hon. Gentleman’s statement that those who will be directly affected by such changes should have as much information and awareness as possible at the earliest opportunity, and I shall ensure that that happens. If information is already available, I will certainly pass it on.

As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the change has a 10-year transition period, and the average length of awards is about six years. Although no new awards will be made from April 2010, we will not end existing awards until April 2020. As has been alluded to, some 4 per cent. of the total carer’s allowance payments to some 17,400 people include an adult dependency increase. As the hon. Gentleman said, about half of carers who receive the increase are no better off because it reduces the income-related benefit payable to them in other ways.

There is a lot to be said for the simplification, and the hon. Gentleman alluded to that in terms of income support and pension credit. Using savings from the change in that regard would pre-empt what we are trying to do with the income taskforce, and all that we are doing for carers, but it would be a useful element to consider. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, allowances for carers were introduced in 1948, and even the densest Members of the House—I am sure that there are none in the Committee—would agree that family patterns have moved on ever so slightly since then. That is as may be, but the point about taking something away from people without them knowing is a fair one. None the less, simplification for all the individuals concerned and the ability of the poorest to access other benefits outweigh the concerns of a small number of people who potentially, depending on the length of the award, could lose out. In that context—along with the clearer picture on the ADI for maternity allowance—simplification is a public policy goal to which everyone should agree.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I did not hear an assurance from the Minister, so I will press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 13

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 13, page 17, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 55, in clause 13, page 17, line 38, at end insert ‘and

(c) in respect of any sums charged as interest on the loans.’.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

We now come to the subject of the social fund. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make arrangements with external providers to make social loans in place of the present arrangements with the DWP. It is important for the Committee to bear in mind the background to the clause, which lies in the Government’s consultation paper that was issued last November and the subsequent Government response to the consultation that was issued this month, which we understand to be the Government’s current position on the matter. We welcome the proposals and the interest that the Government express in having advance payments as a way of obviating the need for crisis loans to be made in certain circumstances, which is worth exploring. Ministers will recall an occasion last autumn when the Government were facilitating, by way of a statutory instrument, the transition of lone parents from income support to jobseeker’s allowance, which left a gap in their provision. To fill that gap, it was suggested that lone parents should take out a crisis loan. We suggested at the time that this was not an entirely satisfactory way of conducting things, and that it should not be beyond the wit of Government to enable a claimant in such a situation to receive an advance payment, rather than having to take out a crisis loan as a result of changes that were being made by the Government. That is worth exploring.

We also note—and this is a very interesting development—that the Government propose not to allow external providers to impose any interest charges on those who receive loans from the social fund. That was in the Government’s original consultation paper in November, but they said clearly in their response to that consultation that they did not intend to charge interest on social fund loans, including any loan scheme set up by an external provider under arrangements with the Secretary of State, and that nor do they have the legal powers to do so.

Several interesting questions arise from that, not least when, and why, the Government formed that intention, but perhaps for the purposes of this debate, it would be reasonable to draw a veil over that subject. They have set out their position—they do not intend that the external providers should charge interest to people who are in need and receive social loans—and therefore we do not need to take the matter any further.

It might assist the Committee if I indicate now that I will not move amendment 17, which would require the Government to produce a report dealing with a number of matters, including the interest charged on loans, as we now know that interest will not be charged. Also, I will not moving the amendment in light of the fact that the Government have indicated in the consultation paper that they will take powers to allow external providers to make social loans, but that they do not intend to use such powers yet. They will not use their power to give external providers responsibility for providing loans. They are setting out to undertake more consultation to develop the plans further with relevant parties, which is perhaps another reason why a report under amendment 17 would not be necessary. There will be more consultation following that which took place in November on these issues and on replacing crisis loans and the social fund with a single loan.

That brings me to amendment 16, which is still relevant as the Government are proposing to take powers—although they do not have any intention of using them at present—to enable external organisations to make loans in place of the present arrangements in the DWP. We know that if the powers were to be used, the external organisations would be credit unions and similar organisations. We acknowledged at the outset that they were worthy bodies and far better than many of the alternatives available to people in need.

It is important, however, when we are considering the powers and the possibility of credit unions and similar organisations disbursing the loans, rather than the DWP, to remember that such organisations face expenses, which they normally defray from interest charged. Also, credit unions need to exceed their operating expenses. We would ask the Minister for a little more clarity and detail on this, given that we now know that the credit unions and other organisations will not be able to charge interest. As the Government take their proposals through further consultation, what are their ideas on how external organisations will defray the expenses that they will inevitably face through having to undertake the task of disbursing the loans on behalf of the Government? Will the Minister say whether, at this stage—I know that this is all still subject to consultation—the Government have any ideas about how that will be funded?

Another important aspect is the funding of the financial advice and additional services that we apprehend from the consultation paper that the Government still intend to provide. Financial advice is a good thing for needy people who require social loans to provide the everyday items that it is hard for them to pay for out of their benefits or other income, and for people in crisis situations or facing a family or household emergency. It is important for them to receive financial advice and related services, but we would like to know how the Government propose that they should be funded. They have made it clear that the service is additional to what is already provided by the DWP, so we need to know a little bit about it.

We wonder whether part of the Government’s thinking is that expenses in respect of the external provider will be paid out of the social fund budget, with the risk being that that would reduce the amount available for lending to social fund borrowers—who are, as the Minister will accept, people in difficult circumstances—or for people borrowing through crisis loans. We need to know whether these provisions will reduce the amount available to such people or whether there will be some other way in which the expenses will be met. We put that to the Minister because we want to know the Government’s thinking at this stage.

We understand that, at the moment, the Government’s position is fluid in respect of these issues, which are important for many needy people and worthy of exploration. We want to play our part in eliciting from the Government details about exactly how they are approaching them.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, in respect of an aspect of amendment 55, we have already had an assurance from the Government that interest will not be charged on loans. To save time later on, I shall make some general remarks about clause 13 because it raises important issues.

It is important to look at the time scale that the Government have used after 10 years of inactivity with regard to the social fund. A consultation was launched in December 2008, but people were given less than three weeks to respond to it, which is one third of what the Government’s code of practice says should be the norm for any such consultation. Before Christmas, an article in The Guardian suggested that ridiculous interest rates would be charged, but the Government have thankfully squashed that idea. However, we now have a situation in which the Government say that they are going to carry out further consultation.

I respectfully suggest to the Government that, given the complete mess that the policy appears to be in, the most appropriate approach would be to withdraw clause 13 completely, carry out a proper, meaningful consultation, discuss the matter with claimants—the people who will actually be affected by such change—and then come forward in the future with proposals that will work. It is clear, given what has happened, that the proposals will not work.

Who will be the providers? We know that the private sector has made it clear that

“in the current economic climate”

—I am quoting the KPMG report—

“they would not wish to fund a model lending to a deep sup-prime sector.”

If the Government were to say, “We will go to non-governmental organisations”, that would have some merit in the long term, but NGOs are saying that although they are pleased to contribute, they have received extremely short notice and they would need longer to talk about it. If the Government are serious about wanting other providers to run the social fund, this matter needs to be set in context with a set of supports—whether financial advice or whether linked to other issues—before we make such a change.

There could be merit in that proposal and in introducing external providers, including NGOs and charities, and having them running the social fund, but the proposal, as it stands, is half baked. With respect, it is a classic example of what we heard about earlier: not putting into the Bill provisions that could lead to complications. The Government have not thought out what they are doing or how the proposal is going to work, and the Bill does not include sufficient detail to make a proposal work, should they want to introduce one. It would be far more sensible if the Government withdrew the clause, went back to the drawing board, and introduced a measure when they had a workable proposal.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

Good evening, Mr. Hood. As this is the first time that I have risen to make a speech, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, even though it is rather late in the day to be doing so? [Interruption.] It is never too late.

Since we have already, in effect, moved on to the clause stand part debate, it might be helpful if I explain what the clause intends to achieve. I absolutely disagree with the hon. Member for Rochdale, who says that we should withdraw it—I shall explain why. People who come to the social fund are those whose finances are at their most precarious. They come to us for help, and it would be irresponsible, when we have made the policy decision to provide them with more support, not to take the primary powers that will give us one avenue for doing so, because, as well as requiring an emergency injection of finances immediately, each person may be in a different situation from that of the person before or after them. They may require a path out of debt, and that could include, for example, information about low-cost insurance schemes that their registered social landlord is able to provide; debt advice or debt consolidation services; advocacy for dealing with the various agencies, organisations or private companies that have contributed to their situation; or flexible repayments. They may respond well to a plan that migrates them from repaying a debt to a savings plan that operates either at the same time that they are repaying their debt, or after they have done so. Alternatively, they might be the type of person for whom that would be entirely inappropriate. They could well be the type of person who needs face-to-face support and advice, and a number of issues might need to be considered in the round, including more complicated things such as child support.

The point is that we, as a delivery Department, may not be the people who, for very good reasons, offer all those things as our core services. However, under the Bill, we will be the people who can take a primary power and provide those who have the most precarious finances with the advice and support that they need from the organisations that are best placed to help them. That is why the clause must remain in the Bill.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I do not disagree with some of the Minister’s points, but I ask her to point out the additional services that she says could be better provided, because proposed new part 8ZA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is all about arrangements for external provider social loans, for the transfer of loans, for an annual report on the operation of arrangements, for repayments of external provider social loans, for the power to restrict to social loans, and the supply of information to all lenders making external social loans. The new arrangements that the Minister talks about are not provided for anywhere in the clause. There is not even a provision to introduce regulations, which is the usual catch-all that the DWP introduce. In view of the Minister’s limited consultation, would it not be best if the whole clause were withdrawn, and if the Government went back to the drawing board and came up with some arrangements—perhaps in the Lords—that enabled the provisions that the Minister wants to be introduced properly?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Subsections (5) and (6) of proposed new section 140ZA make it quite clear that we have the regulation-making power to do precisely that and to specify through contracts.

Perhaps it would be more profitable if I were to move on to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. I welcome his broad support for what we are trying to do and, indeed, I have seen Conservative party documents stating that it supports credit unions. A letter was even sent to me from an outside organisation explaining that it had been called in to discuss the reform of the social fund with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and that it was greatly encouraged that he was keen to explore ways of reworking the social fund, perhaps involving partnerships with credit unions. I am delighted that the Conservative party supports us—that is extremely welcome.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Does the Minister agree, however, that some credit unions are not keen to be involved in this kind of thing and that some people in fact feel that credit unions in this country have suffered compared with those in other countries, because they are associated too closely with the public sector?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I accept that not every credit union wants to get involved, but if the hon. Gentleman were to look at the consultation responses that we published today, he would see that a large number do. The important thing to make crystal clear is that the Bill does not impose a requirement on credit unions, or any other type of organisation, to provide such loans. We are simply taking the power so that, hypothetically, we could invite expressions of interest and publish draft contracts under which such arrangements could work. The hon. Member for Hertsmere is correct to say that we do not intend to use the power at the moment.

Reference has been made to the need for future consultation, with which we agree. I would like to clarify that there will be two further sets of consultation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the first will simply give more detail about the type of arrangements that may exist if we use the power in the future, while the second will go into far more detail about how we would like to use the social fund to advance our aims of financial inclusion, and perhaps deal with some simplification measures, too. Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale, we are today taking the necessary primary powers so that, hopefully, we will not have to return to primary legislation. We will consult on the other powers as soon as we can.

I hope that I can encourage hon. Members not to press amendments 16 and 55 to a Division. Amendment 16 would delete the paragraph enabling us to pay the administrative costs of external providers with whom we enter into a contract. In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Hertsmere, we understand that, in addition to the provision of loans, additional costs will be incurred as a result of such contracts, and we intend to pay them. That is what proposed new section 140ZA(4) sets out. It will not necessarily reduce the amount available elsewhere because, of course, there will be costs for administering such loans anyway. Furthermore, we hope that, as a result of our policy, more people will be migrated off the social fund, which could also free up resources. However, those decisions will be made in the round, across Government, in order best to use taxpayers’ money to achieve our public policy goals and in the overall public interest. I hope that that answers hon. Members’ questions.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She correctly set out our attitude. Our amendment was probing, as I indicated. We want to ensure that, through legislation, social fund borrowers get a better deal—more financial advice, better services and so on—and that the same amount of money is available for them. Those are important considerations.

We do not seek to put up obstacles, and we do not agree with the approach that the hon. Member for Rochdale has put forward, or with his description of this as half baked. If more consultation is needed, more consultation is needed, and we hope that we can play our part in that—who knows, we might already have played it! We do not know yet, but we might have done so constructively. Furthermore, we might have a contribution to make in the future. However, I agree with the Minister that it is not ridiculous for the Government to take powers for something that they might want to do in the future.

Whether the Government use those powers will depend on the outcome of the consultation and the various issues that I outlined in my opening remarks. We might have more to say about this matter in the future but, for the time being, we are taking a broadly constructive approach. We want social fund borrowers to get a better deal. I am sure that all Committee members share the view that more thinking is to come on this matter. Perhaps some interesting ideas will come forward during our consideration of amendment 66, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and which I look forward to discussing. However, for our current purposes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 13, page 18, line 40, at end insert—

‘140ZD Individual social fund accounts

(1) The Secretary of State may establish a system of individual social fund accounts for qualifying persons.

(2) The Secretary of State may designate external providers to provide financial advice to holders of individual social fund accounts.

(3) Individual social fund accounts shall be used to provide budgeting loans from the social fund.

(4) An individual social fund account which meets the requirements of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009 may be designated as a Saving Gateway account.

(5) The Secretary of State may prescribe the conditions under which a designated external provider may advance funds to the Secretary of State for the provision of social fund budgeting loans.

(6) A designated external provider may make a qualifying loan to an eligible person from that person’s individual social fund account.

(7) The Secretary of State may prescribe conditions under which deductions may be made from an eligible person’s relevant benefits for the repayment of the amount of the qualifying loan to the individual social fund account of the eligible person and to recover the allowable costs of the external provider.

(8) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) to establish a system of individual social fund accounts and to set out criteria for qualifying persons under subsection (1),

(b) to specify criteria for the designation of external providers under subsection (2),

(c) to prescribe the conditions under subsection (5), and

(d) to prescribe conditions under which deductions may be made from an eligible person’s relevant benefits for the repayment of the amount of the qualifying loan under subsection (7).’.

The amendment has been trailed, and I will seek to take our debate on the social fund a little further. We know from our previous debates that there is something of a consensus that the social fund needs reform, and the amendment outlines one way in which to take reform further in the Bill.

In essence, there are two problems with budgeting loans, which is the part of the social fund that my amendment would change. The first problem is that this part of the welfare system is, in my view, entirely passive in its relationship with our customers, and the second problem is that it is clearly underfunded.

First, to illustrate the passive nature of the current provisions, at the moment an applicant will approach us on the telephone or come into a Jobcentre Plus office. Their entitlement to a budgeting loan will be considered and, if approved, a payment will be handed out to the customer. That is the end of the benefit system’s involvement with that person. There is no discussion with them about the causes of the financial situation that brought them in search of a budgeting loan. We give them no direction on where they might seek further advice to find out more about how to handle their finances, and we offer no help with future budgeting.

The second problem is that the fund is underfunded. The Government have increased the money available in the budgeting fund, which is welcome, and at the moment we have around £500 million circulating around the fund—it is paid out and then comes back through deductions from benefit. However, demand in our communities for the type of assistance that the budgeting loan gives is greater even than the £500 million to which the Government have been able to increase the fund in recent years.

In the evidence session on 10 February, Martin Narey said:

“The real urgency is to provide avenues of affordable credit for poor people...If something could be done on the availability of the social fund...it could make things dramatically easier for some of our poorest families.”——[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009; c. 46, Q58.]

The amendment is an attempt to address that challenge.

I estimate that demand for such financial assistance is about four or five times greater than the budgeting loan fund is able to meet. That means that benefit recipients and low-income families are looking to alternatives to the budgeting loan for credit. Only about 1 per cent. of the population have access to credit unions, which shows how small the credit union movement is in our country. Although, thankfully, the Government are doing a number of things to try to expand it, it is never going to reach the capacity at which it can be a universal alternative.

If no credit union is available, where are people going? They are perhaps going to Provident Financial, in which case they are paying an annual percentage rate of 189 per cent. on their loan, or they might be going to a more recent innovation: a new sort of store that allows people to rent an item and then own it after three years. That is another sort of credit scheme offered by companies, such as BrightHouse, but people would be paying 200 per cent. interest on the loan. People might be going to organisations such as Payday Loans, which is another fairly recent company that has come to the United Kingdom from the United States, I think. It is growing rapidly and charges 1,344 per cent. on the money loaned. If people are not going to any of the legal options, they could be visiting an illegal alternative working in their community: a loan shark whose interest rate we can only guess at, although it is probably in excess of 1,000 per cent. The repayments sometimes come with menaces, too.

Let me put things another way. If today has been a typical day, we, through the DWP, have probably agreed 4,000 budgeting loans worth a total of £2 million to those who received them. We are asking them to pay us back £2 million, with no interest, through deductions from their benefits. Again, if today has been typical, 16,000 people on low incomes or benefits will have taken out another form of non-bank loan, the total of which would have been about £8 million. However, unlike the budgeting loan, under which they would have to pay back £8 million, they will have to pay back £22 million. That shows the significance of the shortfall and explains why we need to look at ways in which to expand and recapitalise the budgeting loan.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that arrangements with no interest are better than paying back huge, horrific amounts of interest. However, does he agree that people on benefits would be better off receiving grants rather than loans?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a grant element in the social fund. Thankfully, the Government have been able to expand the facilities that are available to fund the grant part of the scheme. In our previous debate, we covered the grant elements of the social fund, but I want to expand the budgeting loan part, which sits alongside the grant-giving capability of the social fund. If we are really to address the target that we are about to give ourselves in statute to abolish child poverty over a given time, increasing the supply of affordable credit will be a crucial step in achieving that ultimate objective. When asked, most of the child poverty campaigning organisations say that the key thing that needs to be done to achieve a step change in the process towards abolishing child poverty is to expand affordable credit in our communities. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, recognises and understands that already. I welcome the fact that, through the Bill, social fund reform is under way and gathering momentum.

As the Under-Secretary said in the evidence session on 12 February, the Bill is

“only the beginning of the journey”.——[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 74, Q120.]

By tabling the amendment, I am trying to put wind in her sails and to increase the speed of the journey. I am not trying to put a detailed scheme in place—that would not be right—but I have set out a framework for a scheme that deals with the two big problems of the existing scheme’s passivity and lack of funding. I envisage that, instead of how the system works at the moment, the claimant—when going to Jobcentre Plus in search of help—would be enrolled into a social fund account. A relationship would then immediately be built with the individual, and we would not just remain passive towards that person. The account would give them access to budgeting loans exactly as they currently exist—I am not proposing that that be changed—but it would also give them access to free and impartial financial advice, which it is important to have. Pursuing my suggested route for bringing in additional capital from an external provider would give the opportunity for applicants, if appropriate, to take out an affordable loan.

If the additional capitalisation came from the Treasury, for example, we would be simply expanding the budgeting loan resource as it is at the moment. Realistically, however, we will not see another £2 billion or so coming from the Treasury in the foreseeable future. The additional funding that I am seeking might come from another external provider—the clearing banks, for example, might agree to grant it to the Government as a long-term loan, which the Government might at some point eventually repay, allowing the additional funds still to be interest-free. However, we might not get a deal on such terms and the external provider might want money back for giving us the loan, in which case I would expect that the kind of loans that would be granted in that way would carry a rate of interest, but one comparable to those applied to credit union loans.

It is important to stress that the existing interest-free element of loans remains in my amendment, but we would be giving people the opportunity, if the business model worked, which would of course be conditional, to gain access to affordable credit in addition to any budgeting loan scheme. That would have the effect, if the business model worked, of putting the loan sharks out of business and probably also putting many of those other organisations that are charging exorbitant interest rates out of business, which I would welcome. Of course the business case has to be made, which is why my amendment sets out only a framework into which a scheme could be dropped, rather than attempting to design it in any detail. However, it is important that we take the primary powers to enable us to pursue that route and seek the appropriate working business model.

I am simply asking the Minister to go further on the journey of which she spoke. Many vulnerable families desperately need our help. We could put a framework in place and then pursue a business model. That it is what many of the groups that have been speaking to us for many years are urging us to do, and that would make a dramatic difference to the prospects for many low-income families.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendment. He speaks with considerable policy experience and knowledge in this area. In some ways, we could characterise the amendment as ahead of its time, which makes my hon. Friend a visionary for putting it forward. We agree with the spirit of what he is saying but, as I shall explain, I am not sure that it is the appropriate vehicle for addressing his policy proposal.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more for people whose finances are precarious, as I said earlier. His description of a system that needs to move from being passive to being active is entirely right. A crucial part is providing financial advice and a broader variety of services, whether through external providers or, where we can, ourselves. He talked of saving gateway accounts—I do not want to be pedantic by pointing out that that Bill is not yet an Act and has certainly not been implemented. That might be one small way of saying that he is ahead of his time. Certainly, once that measure is enacted, there will be many ways for the Government to promote saving gateway accounts to the type of people who may be applying to us for crisis or budgeting loans—indeed, there will be a large overlap in those two cohorts, I am sure—by signposting and so on.

Part of my hon. Friend’s suggestion was to allow for outside capital to come into the social fund. Free money is great; I would be absolutely delighted if anyone externally wanted to capitalise a social fund and give us a pot of cash that we could lend out without charging interest and preferably never have to pay back. At this point I am not convinced that there is a business model that will do that, but if he can come to me with an organisation that will provide that money, I will be delighted to receive it, and if he knows more than I do, I will be happy to hear how that would work.

It is better for us to be able to enter into an agreement with an external organisation as we already propose, because, to be frank, it will be a financial institution and will have greater capital available, perhaps to migrate people from having a debt to being able to save, which is the spirit of what my hon. Friend is proposing. I agree that that is one of the areas in which we are missing a trick at the moment. Our ultimate goal is for people to be able to put enough money away, difficult though that of course is on low incomes, or to have other measures, such as insurance, to avoid the need for a debt in the first place. However, if they do require a debt, we need to be able to support and advise them through that process.

I am asking my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. However, as a direct result of his tabling the amendment, I will take it upon myself to ensure that the suggestion that he has made—that people with social fund debts or any other affordable credit debt should be encouraged in any way possible by the Government to migrate that into a savings account, current account or saving gateway account—is taken on board in the appropriate cross-Whitehall discussions that are taking place on, for example, a people’s bank. He can rest assured that he has had an effect. I hope that that will be sufficient for him to withdraw the amendment at this stage and enable us to continue discussing this worthwhile policy in the months and years ahead.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. She has been quite warm about what I have suggested and agrees with the spirit of it. She has unbundled the proposals in my amendment and I appreciate what she has said about some aspects of it. She may be right that there could be other means of pursuing those ideas and yet achieving exactly the same end that I suggested this amendment could. I hope that other parts of it, which she has not picked up at this point, may nevertheless still be included in the further consultation that I know the Department is undertaking about the future direction of the social fund. If that is possible—I think that she is assenting to that—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 14

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about the clause, because it provides the Secretary of State with the power, where a social loan external provider exists, to enable existing social fund arrangements not to apply. One of our concerns is that a situation will be created in which, depending on whereabouts people are in the country, there are different arrangements and different provision. The worst situation might be one in which in one part of the country a very generous arrangement was operated by an external provider, but in another part of the country the arrangements were not as generous. In taking on this power, which restricts the type of loan that can be provided to just an external provider loan, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a level playing field and that regardless of where someone is in the country, the same support or same type of loan will be available? It is not clear from what has already been published or from clause 14 how the Department will ensure that. We would have great concerns if we were to see an uneven playing field and certain parts of the country being treated better than others.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which are valid. If we were to enter an arrangement with an external provider, it would be because we thought that would help us to meet our public policy aims more effectively. In a sense, the client in that area might, by definition, have access to a more holistic service than one in an area in which there was no such contract. However, that is better than retaining the current situation, because it would bring an improvement for some people, although we would like everyone to have that improvement. Let me reassure him on the general point that if and when we enter arrangements in certain geographical areas, those arrangements will have broadly the same eligibility, and there will be no attempt to change eligibility for two identical customers who live in different places. This is precisely the type of issue that we will consult on further when we have more detail as to how those contracts might work. The clause is important because it would be unduly complex, and would not help the situation, to run two parallel schemes in the same area, with one being provided centrally and the other being provided by an external provider.

Clause 16

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I rise to speak to amendment 18, in clause 16, page 21, line 7, at end add—

‘(8) (a) the Secretary of State shall prepare an Annual report on the operation of the arrangements relating to the community care grants and shall include in that report details of the number and value of the community care grants awarded,

(b) a copy of every such report shall be laid before each House of Parliament.’.

The clause relates to an important, but separate, subject dealing with community grants that are made available to vulnerable people. However, given what we now know from the Government’s response to the consultation about their intention that the same amount of funding will be available for those grants, I no longer wish to move the amendment.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

The amendment is not moved.