The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairmen:
Mr.
David Amess, †
Mr.
Jimmy
Hood
†
Afriyie,
Adam
(Windsor)
(Con)
†
Alexander,
Danny
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD)
†
Banks,
Gordon
(Ochil and South Perthshire)
(Lab)
Boswell,
Mr. Tim
(Daventry)
(Con)
†
Brown,
Mr. Russell
(Dumfries and Galloway)
(Lab)
†
David,
Mr. Wayne
(Caerphilly)
(Lab)
†
Engel,
Natascha
(North-East Derbyshire)
(Lab)
†
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's
Household)†
Hunt,
Mr. Jeremy
(South-West Surrey)
(Con)
Laws,
Mr. David
(Yeovil)
(LD)
†
McGuire,
Mrs. Anne
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and
Pensions)†
Mountford,
Kali
(Colne Valley)
(Lab)
†
Murphy,
Mr. Jim
(Minister for Employment and Welfare
Reform)†
Penrose,
John
(Weston-super-Mare)
(Con)
†
Robertson,
John
(Glasgow, North-West)
(Lab)
†
Ruffley,
Mr. David
(Bury St. Edmunds)
(Con)
†
Seabeck,
Alison
(Plymouth, Devonport)
(Lab)
John
Benger, Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public
Bill Committee
Thursday
30 November
2006
[Mr.
Jimmy Hood in the
Chair]
9.10
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire): On a point of order,
Mr. Hood, would you allow me an opportunity to correct the
Official Report? The record shows that I told the hon. Member
for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that, since its
introduction, the two strikes measure has been applicable to 320 cases
a year, of which 190 have had the sanction applied. I now wish to make
it clear that 320 is the total number of cases to which the measure has
been applied since the legislation commenced in April 2002 and that the
sanction was applied in 190 cases.
The Chairman: That was
not a point of order; it was a point of information, but thank
you.
Clause 53
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
54
Allocations
from Social
Fund
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD): I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that point of
information. It is a lovely day in London, but not in my constituency
in the highlands. Sadly, not everybody in this United
Kingdom—long may it remain so—is benefiting from the
weather that we are enjoying here.
Let me probe the Minister for a
few more points of clarification. My understanding is that the purpose
of the clause is to allow him more flexibility with regard to the
allocation of moneys that can be used for social fund purposes and how
they can be distributed at national and regional level. Does the
measure also give flexibility as to the nature of grants and loans that
may be given from the social fund? If it does not, is that something
that he will look at
again?
A number of
organisations have made representations to me about whether there might
be a case for making additional types of grant available through the
social fund, over and above those that are currently allowed. I am well
aware, as I am sure the Committee is, that the social fund is cash
limited; it is used for precise purposes. In particular, the Child
Poverty Action Group has proposed ideas such as using the social fund
for a child development grant, payable at key stages in a
child’s life, and a health and safety grant. In the early years
of a child’s life, that might be particularly useful for key
items in the home that are considered essential for a child’s
health and
safety, such as a cot or bedding, or for the repair and replacement of
gas and electrical
appliances.
That
organisation has also proposed the idea of an opportunity grant or
allowance to assist claimants in getting back to work, recognising that
additional costs might be incurred in that process. That would
certainly be relevant to part 1 of the Bill. Currently, as the
Committee knows, such payments can be made as discretionary payments
through the adviser’s discretionary fund. However, that is not
formally advertised or promoted, so it is not necessarily known to
claimants unless the adviser makes them aware of it. The additional
option of a specific grant within the social fund may be a way of
getting around that.
The purpose of my questions is
to elicit from the Minister whether the clause will give him the powers
to make it clear that additional sorts of grant may be allowable under
the social fund, and whether he has considered those
ideas.
Mr.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman
referred to representations that he received. Has anybody mentioned to
him an experience that I have encountered? A number of people in my
constituency who have made unsuccessful applications for a raft of
benefits have been told to go for the social fund. The result is that
the local office in my constituency is often almost inundated with
phone calls at certain times of day. An individual will often have to
try for literally two days before he gets a response on whether an
application may be successful.
Danny
Alexander: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.
The experience that he described has been shared by some of my
constituents with regard to crisis loans. Both he and I were at the
recent meeting of the all-party group on citizens advice, where
Citizens Advice representatives reported that the experience was common
to people living in many constituencies. The Minister may therefore
wish to deal with the issue of timeliness. Given the nature of social
fund payments, which are sometimes for emergencies, especially in the
case of crisis loans, what steps are being taken to ensure that
telephone lines are answered as quickly as possible so that people do
not have the experience that the hon. Member for Caerphilly accurately
described?
Within the
social fund, what scope does the Minister have to allow additional
categories of grant or loan? If he has such powers, is he minded to use
them in a particular way, and if he does not, is he minded to take
them?
The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim
Murphy): We started in sunshine and, although there have
been storm clouds over my right shoulder from time to time, we end in
sunshine.
I am
delighted to have this opportunity to respond to the debate on clause
54, having spent most of last evening reading the detail of clause
53.
Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): On a point of
clarification, I thought I heard the Minister say
“reading”, but of course he meant to say
“re-reading”.
Mr.
Murphy: Sorry, I should have said
“writing”.
We turn a little earlier than I
had hoped, therefore, to clause 54. The hon. Member for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is right that the clause provides for
flexibility in the allocation of funds for discretionary social fund
payments. The clause makes it clear that there can be a single
nationwide allocation from which loans may be made, so that expenditure
can be controlled and managed centrally. A national loans budget,
managed centrally, provides all loan applicants in Great Britain with
the same treatment. That is crucial to the fairness and transparency of
the budgeting loans scheme. In particular, it will ensure that all
eligible applicants in the same circumstances will have the same amount
of budgeting loan available to them wherever they live.
In response to the specific
points that the hon. Gentleman raised, as he knows, the social fund
already provides regulated grants for easily identifiable life events
and situations such as maternity, funeral and cold weather
expenses—be the cold weather in Inverness or elsewhere—as
he fairly said. The case for further regulated grants needs to be
considered in the context of increasing personal responsibility without
encouraging worklessness. It is about getting the balance right. For
most people, the main route out of poverty is the opportunity to
work—work that pays and which, if sustained, leads to a
career.
The hon.
Gentleman was fair in pointing out that the clause gives a degree of
flexibility within a national budget, which is how we want to allocate
funds in future.
Danny
Alexander: The Minister rightly referred to personal
responsibility, and people’s responsibility to get back into
work, which is, after all, a major feature of the Bill. My point is
that the idea of additional forms of grant within the social fund to
aid that process is at least worth considering. Likewise, in Committee,
he has rightly often referred to the need to tackle child poverty. I
argue that it would be useful, if possible, to restructure the social
fund with perhaps more focus on that
objective.
Mr.
Murphy: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. He shares
our commitment to the eradication of child poverty, to which the Bill
is important. We look forward to his party signing up to the 2020
target before 2020.
The hon. Gentleman raised the
specific matter of flexibility, and made a fair point. He reasonably
alighted on the fact that the clause contains the power to make
different types of grant, and we continue to consider improvements to
the social fund scheme, including possible reforms to the community
care grant scheme. We have said publicly, and I say again for the
record, that we are keen to discuss longer-term reform of the social
fund with interested parties, organisations and Members of this House
and the other place. The power in the clause is generally welcomed and
builds on the progress that we have made on the social fund in recent
years, such as lower interest-free loans and additional funding for the
next three years of £210 million.
As I said, myself and the
Under-Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friends the
Members for Stirling and for Warwick and Leamington (Mr.
Plaskitt), are keen to have conversations with interested parties about
the longer-term reform of the social fund, and the clause plays an
important part in giving it
flexibility.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 54
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6
Schedule
to be inserted in the Pneumonoconiosis etc. (Workers’
Compensation) Act
1979
Mr.
Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in
schedule 6, page 77, line 19, at
end insert—
‘1A A person is not a
relevant employer in relation to a person disabled by a disease to
which this Act applies if the disabled person has had no period of
employment with him which is a qualifying period of
employment.’.
Again, we have come to this
amendment a little earlier than I anticipated, but I and my hon. Friend
the Member for Nottingham, East, are as one in our delight that we are
making such good
progress.
The
Pneumonoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 provides
for lump-sum payments to be made to people with certain dust-related
diseased caused by their work. To qualify for a payment, a person must
be unable to take civil action against their employer because that
employer is no longer in business. In the Act, that is called the
“relevant employer condition.” It became clear within
months of the Act coming into force that applying the relevant employer
condition meant that most claims would be rejected. The changes that we
are making to the 1979 Act will incorporate in legislation a more
practical version of the relevant employer condition than officials
have been applying since 1980. There will be five circumstances in
which an employer will not be regarded as a relevant employer,
therefore enabling a person to bring a claim. Without the amendment,
those relevant employer disregards that we wish to introduce will not
apply in cases in which all periods of employment with the employer
ended more than 20 years before the qualifying
date.
Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): Plymouth ranks third
in the UK in terms of deaths from mesothelioma, and we believe that the
amendment is useful. The dockyard is a single employer, but there was
also a myriad of other employers, some of which have gone out of
business as the dockyard has declined. This change is very
important.
Mr.
Murphy: My hon. Friend is correct, and we know about
Plymouth’s traditional role in the shipbuilding industry.
Although I do not recall it, I lived in Plymouth much earlier in my
life, because my father worked in the shipyards. I believe that it is
the
furthest city in the UK from Glasgow—which is an interesting and
relevant point. Things got so bad that we had to find the furthest
point from home.
My
hon. Friend, along with many other right hon. and hon. Friends in the
Government, is determined to ensure that there is a fairer deal for
mesothelioma sufferers. The time that it takes to apply for, process
and receive a payment is still, on average, longer than the
post-diagnosis life expectancy for mesothelioma sufferers. No one can
tolerate that as the status quo. Certainly we in government do not, and
I do not think that it is a matter of party political
disagreement.
I pay
tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone
(Mr. Clapham) for the points that he has raised and the
dogged determination that he has shown as chair of the all-party group
on coalfield communities and that the other members of that group have
shown. Technically, it is an all-party group, but I think that all
those I met who represent mining communities were Labour Members of
Parliament. However, there is consensus that we must go further in
supporting people with mesothelioma to get a fairer
deal.
In mesothelioma
cases, when all employment with the employer began not more than 15
years before the qualifying date, claims for payments of compensation
under the 1979 Act might be turned down in some cases in which an
extra-statutory payment is currently made. That is not acceptable to
the Government, and I do not believe that it would be acceptable to any
member of this
Committee.
Let me pick
up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
Devonport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions announced in July this year a number of interim measures to
ensure faster compensation for those with mesothelioma, as well as his
intention to put in place a long-term solution to ensure that, wherever
possible, sufferers of mesothelioma receive compensation while alive.
He committed to consulting stakeholders on a long-term solution, and
the formal consultation period ended on 23 November. We are analysing
the responses and next March we will host a mesothelioma summit with
stakeholders to discuss the options for action. We have also asked
officials to carry out a review of the current industrial injuries
disablement benefit scheme, and intend to publish a consultation paper
early in
2007.
Finally, I want
to make a wider point on the amendment. I have paid tribute previously
to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend
the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), and I am a close
friend of someone who was a colleague of ours, the former Member of
Parliament for Clydebank and Milngavie. He played a pivotal role in
previous Parliaments on the issue of mesothelioma, and again it is
appropriate for me to put on record his determination and the way in
which he kept this issue at the forefront of people’s minds in
Parliament. Often in Parliament, we think that history began when we
arrived in this place. Sometimes we all suffer from that. As I said, we
have announced a review of the industrial
injuries disablement benefit scheme, and of course there are related
issues involving mesothelioma and other
matters.
I also want
to put on record the continuing admiration of Labour Members for a
gentleman by the name of Jim Griffiths, who introduced the first
industrial injuries disablement benefit. I think that he was from
Carmarthen in
Wales.
