Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, as did my
hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), and the
hon. Member for Walthamstow touched on a different aspect of it. I am
sure that
Labour Members, some of whom may come in with their own questions, will
want the Minister to reassure them on that. As I think the hon.
Gentleman correctly anticipated, they fear that many of their
constituents will be coming into their surgeries or getting in touch by
letter or
e-mail. Mr.
Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Would today not be the
time for a corrective statement to be made to give our constituents the
categorical reassurance that they will not lose out by returning to
work and being faced with the problems described by other hon. Members
earlier?
Mr.
Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that,
to reassure his own colleagues, the Minister will want to say that, if
people who are currently on incapacity benefit take the help that is
available to move back into work but it does not work out and they have
to go back on to ESA, they will not be worse off. I am sure that Labour
Members, as well as Opposition Members, want to be reassured about
that. The last thing that any hon. Member wants—I am sure that
this is not the Government’s intention—is to have another
10p tax situation in which they have not caused the problem
intentionally but the effect is that they penalise some of the most
vulnerable people in the community and that they have to fix that at a
later date. It would be much better to listen to the warnings now from
the various groups that have made proposals and, indeed, to hon.
Members on both sides of the House and to think about the regulations
as the Government introduce
them. It
is also worth saying that the Government have been challenged on the
matter previously in both Houses, as one would expect them to have
been, and this is their
response: “The
government does not accept that the rates which have been announced are
incompatible with statements made to Parliament. The rate of
£84.50 for those in the work-related activity component is above
the rate of long-term Incapacity Benefit (£81.35) at the time
the statements were
made.” I
think that it is an innovation that Ministers have discussions back in
2006 and say that a future benefit will be at a rate higher than the
benefit that currently exists, but when they bring it in, they do so at
a lower rate than the benefit that exists at that time and then pretend
that it was the benefit level pertaining to the time when they made the
statement that was relevant. If we carried that logic through, we would
have extraordinary situations in which people were existing on a
certain amount of benefit and then a new benefit was introduced that
Ministers had talked about a number of years ago, but people’s
benefits were cut and Ministers said that that was fine, because they
were talking about the benefit rates of a few years ago. That would not
stand much scrutiny among members of the public. The Minister needs to
explain that that innovation—talking about rates at the time
when statements were made even though the benefit does not come in
until a good two or three years later—will not be adopted by
Ministers as a new form of
government. Another
issue that I want to raise, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central
raised, is the difference between the contributory benefit and the
income benefit. Our view—I think that there is some agreement on
this—is that those people who have worked and made national
insurance contributions are penalised. People on the
contributions-based ESA are not automatically passported on to
additional benefits. They do not receive a number of benefits that
those who are on the income side do, and that sets up an anomaly. The
Minister should explain why there is that difference, whether it makes
sense, what the policy reason is for it and whether he thinks that it
will have negative effects on people’s incentives. What message
does it send to people when we are trying to encourage them to take the
risk—the opportunity—of getting back into
work? Jenny
Willott: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the proposals
that have been made on how the issue could be got around—for
example, a disregard of £1 for those on the contributions-based
ESA—and on whether he has considered some of the alternatives
that could be put in place, so that we can give some good advice to the
Minister that he might care to take
up?
Mr.
Harper: I am grateful for that intervention, but given
that we have not heard from the Minister at all in response to some of
the hon. Lady’s very sensible questions and given that the
Minister is furnished with help in the House for policy
development—help that neither she nor I are furnished
with—it is better if the Minister sets out how he will deal with
the issues, rather than us setting out how we will deal with them. I
look forward to that with interest. If he sets out a sensible way of
dealing with them, we can come back and challenge him. If he does not,
we can make that decision when we consider the regulations towards the
end of this
sitting. Specific
details in the regulations relate to the treatment of contributory ESA.
When the income support claimant’s partner is in receipt of
contributory ESA, that is treated as income. In relation to part 2 of
the regulations, paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum says only
that contributory ESA will be treated as income for income support. It
does not say whether ESA on the income side will be treated as income
for the purposes of income support. Will the Minister say whether both
types of ESA count as income for the purposes of income support for the
claimant’s
partner?
John
Penrose: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way again.
Does he agree that the regulations send a catastrophic message on work
incentives? They say to people that if they work, they will be worse
off when having to claim benefit than if they had never worked. That
message is fundamentally unjust and unfair for the whole of society
when it comes to the sort of industrious behaviour that we are trying
to encourage. It runs completely counter to the fundamental principles
underlying many of the genuinely advantageous ideas that underpin much
of the Government’s legislation. In particular, those on
income-based ESA, who are in a support group and therefore not required
to work, are, as the Minister will confirm, none the less allowed to
volunteer to work or to try to get work if they wish.
If they
volunteer and do some work—having overcome the difficulties of
their disability or illness against all the odds—and as a result
get some contributions under
their belt, but then stop working at some point, perhaps because their
illness has become worse, is it not possible that they will go from
income-based ESA to contributions-based ESA and find that their benefit
is therefore cut? Surely that cannot be what the Government have in
mind. Mr.
Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
contribution. Indeed, as he was there, he will know that the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for East Ham, then
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, had some sympathy with that
point. Indeed, he said that he was aware of the concern that some might
lose out. He said:
“We are
going to look at this and see whether there is anything further we can
do to
help.” He
said that he was not sure at that stage whether the Government could
help, but he understood the concern and said that they would consider
the matter.
I presume that
the Minister will be able to tell us the outcome of the review—I
hope that that is not too strong a word—set in train by the
former Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, and whether
officials and Ministers concluded that anything could be done. The then
Minister said that he was unlikely to be able to do anything that would
kick in at the start, but he did say that the Government may be able to
make changes subsequently to deal with what might be seen by some as an
unattractive feature of the arrangements. He
said: “We
will be looking at that over the coming
weeks.” That
was on 2 July. A number of weeks have passed since then, including the
summer recess. I hope that officials have been busy beavering away, and
that they have been able to brief the former and the current Minister.
I hope that we will hear something good this afternoon.
The next
issue, mentioned in item 2.3 in the explanatory memorandum, is about
permitted work and the difference between income-based and
contributions-based ESA. Again, there appears to be a difference
between claimants—this point was raised also by the hon. Member
for Walthamstow—particularly the work that housing and council
tax benefit claimants are permitted to do. I shall not speak on this at
length, as the hon. Gentleman gave a good example, but an individual
who has previously worked and made national insurance contributions
could be worse off than a similarly placed individual on the
income-based stream. Such people suffer largely because of the amount
of housing benefit and council tax benefit that they can receive, and
the difference in the way in which those benefits are treated for
income-based and contributions-based claimants. Indeed, an official
said in evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee
that
“There
is still a difference...on the contributory side. There would
obviously be a cost to making that adjustment and it is something that
we are looking at in the context of the Housing Benefit
review”. The
hon. Member for Walthamstow said that he was looking for changes to
housing benefit or council tax benefit regulations—not today, as
the regulations before us cannot be amended, but perhaps in future.
Ministers and officials have said that that work is in train, even if
the Minister is unable today to give us a categorical, detailed
assurance about specific regulations. It would
make Opposition Members and the hon. Member for Walthamstow a lot
happier if the Minister could confirm that the work is under way and
assure us that the problem will be fixed, even if he is unable to tell
us about specific
regulations. David
Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): As a former Chairman of the
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I should like to mention the
view of the other place on the merits of this legislation. The House of
Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments said that
a number of organisations had written to the Committee to express
concern that the regulations do not meet with its understanding of
Government policy. Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about
that?
Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is helpful
if the Government take seriously the concerns of the Committees that
consider statutory instruments. He mentioned the first part of the
Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee conclusions, which
states: “Although
there has been extensive consultation and there appears to be general
support for the
principles”— I
think that there is general agreement on
them— “a
number of organisations
have” expressed “concern
that the Regulations do not meet with their understanding of the
Government’s
intention.” That
goes back to the central point that we can agree on the general
principle, but the devil is in the detail in regulations such as these.
Hon. Members, other organisations and the Merits of Statutory
Instruments Committee share that concern. To follow up my hon.
Friend’s point, the Committee went on to
state: “The
Regulations are
complex”— one
finds that when wading through
them— “and
claimants may find it difficult to understand the operation of this
allowance. The Government needs to do more to explain how the system
will work and to address the concerns of interest groups that are in a
position to offer significant assistance in helping claimants
understand the new
system”. That
advice was given to the Government by the Merits of Statutory
Instruments Committee so, presumably, the Minister will have an answer
to it, and will today say why he thinks that he has resolved the
issue.
Mr.
Scott: Does my hon. Friend share my sadness that new
measures that are meant to make things simpler for some of the most
vulnerable people in our society are in fact going to make it more
difficult for them to receive what they deserve and
need?
Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am sure
that we will hear him flesh out those points in due
course.
Mr.
Stuart: If like me my hon. Friend meets constituents in
his surgeries who have suffered from mental illness of one form or
another, he will know that their lives are punctuated by periods when
they are well and wish to seek employment, but that at other times,
their lives are more chaotic. Does he share my concern that people with
mental illnesses might be especially badly affected by the measure, and
that they could be put off entering employment? Will the Minister
comment on their plight?
Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is a
general recognition, which is shared by a number of the groups that
represent claimants, that those with mental health problems often face
greater problems when dealing with the benefits system than those with
physical disabilities. That is not always properly taken into account
in the way that the Department communicates with them, how they
understand such measures or in how the regulations are framed. The
point that I was going to make before my hon. Friend intervened was on
part 2 of the regulations, which is about income-related benefits, and
points 7.14 and 7.15 of the explanatory memorandum, which concerns
disabled students. Currently, people on income support can study
full-time in some circumstances, but under income-based ESA, only those
getting disability living allowance may study full-time. The Government
previously gave assurances that that would not be the case. Again, that
seems to be a disincentive for disabled students. A number of the
relevant regulations, which are referred to in paragraph
7.14 and 7.15 of the explanatory memorandum, mention part-time but not
full-time students and the extent to which they are able to carry out
full-time study. Will the Minister say whether the position of
full-time students is
protected? Paragraph
8 of the explanatory memorandum states that no impact assessment has
been prepared for this set of regulations—a little
concerning—because they will have
“no impact on
business, charities or the voluntary
sectors.” It
seems to me that the voluntary sector contains a number of
organisations that spend a considerable amount of their time advising
vulnerable groups on how the benefit system works and how they might be
affected by it. It seems a little strange to claim that a set of
regulations introducing an entirely new benefit will have no impact on
the voluntary sector, so it would be helpful if the Minister could set
out why he thinks that that is the case.
Paragraph 7.51
of the explanatory memorandum
states: “A
claim to ESA will normally be made by telephone...The Secretary of
State does have the discretion to require a claim to be made in writing
and the customer themselves may, for various reasons prefer to make
their claim in
writing.” Could
the Minister set out what arrangements are in place for those claimants
who have a disability that makes using the telephone difficult? It
would be useful to know that they will not have any barriers put in
their way when making claims or dealing with the
Department. John
Howell (Henley) (Con): In talking about the lack of an
impact assessment my hon. Friend has quite rightly drawn attention to
the voluntary sector. Picking up on the point he made about disabled
students, is there not a case for having an impact assessment in
relation to those institutions that provide the teaching and that have
done so much over the past few years to make skills training much more
flexible and
personal?
| 
