Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point that will have
been heard by the Minister, who I hope will address it when he winds
up. I
have a couple of points to make before I shut up. Having been through
the regulations, we know that they were complicated enough for the
Department to make a number of mistakes in them. We know that the
provisions
of The Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations
2008 correct two errors in the list of eligible customers made in the
regulations before us today. We know, before voting on the regulations,
that they contain a number of mistakes that Ministers have admitted. In
one sense, it makes me feel good that Ministers have spotted those
mistakes and have, even before we have had a chance to vote on the
regulations, tabled more regulations to correct them. On the other
hand, however, it makes one wonder whether there are more mistakes
buried in the regulations that have not yet been spotted, despite the
eagle eyes of Committee members, who I am sure have been through them
in great
detail. Lastly,
will the Minister confirm how much the ESA will cost in total? I hope
that he will be able to confirm a figure, because I have had a variety
of answers on that point from other Ministers. Lord McKenzie gave one
answer in the House of Lords, claiming that the figure was
“£400
million in total to be spent on ESA over the next five years—in
comparison to what we would have done on incapacity benefit added to
the £1.1 billion invested in Pathways to
Work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May
2008; Vol. 701, c.
1648.] It was
not entirely clear from that answer whether the figure would be
£400 extra on ESA compared to incapacity benefit, on the rates,
or whether that in some way included the cost of pathways to work. I
received a subsequent answer from the Secretary of State on 2 June,
stating that the £400 million figure was spread over three
years, but I am pleased to say that a letter from him later confirmed
that it was spread over five years. That letter of 18 September was
placed in the Library and was available to Committee members. Will the
Minister confirm that the £400 million is an increase in
benefits paid out and does not include any increase in the cost of
pathways to work? That would be
helpful. Members
who have spoken have laid out a number of concerns about the
regulations, although no one has disagreed with the principle of the
employment and support allowance. The Opposition want to hear coherent
answers from the Minister that reassure us about our concerns. If we do
not, we shall be forced to vote against the regulations and to tell the
Government to go away and deal with the issues, to ensure that their
policy intentions are properly carried out and that the detail of the
regulations does not inadvertently damage the interests of some of the
most vulnerable groups in our
society. 5.20
pm
John
Penrose: I rise simply because, having been involved with
much of the legislation in the earlier stages of its progress through
this place, I am gravely concerned that the Government need to tread
carefully. To follow up on the last point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Forest of Dean, the principle of encouraging people and
providing them with plenty of support to get back into work no matter
what their starting point has broad cross-party agreement throughout
the House. It also enjoys huge support outside the House from many of
the disability groups scrutinising the legislation in great
detail.
The Government
risk undermining a great degree of that broad support by trying to
nickel and dime, to use the American expression, on the rates that they
are
setting. They risk undermining the legislation’s basic principle,
which has carried them so far and created so much good will within
Parliament and outside it, with the rates that they are setting and
their behaviour in fighting battles, presumably between the Treasury
and the Department for Work and Pensions. It looks to everybody here as
if the Treasury has won this one comprehensively and hands
down. I
echo everything that my hon. Friend said about the clear anomalies, and
I shall add one more. There seems to be a problem with couple rates in
the new employment and support allowance. As far as I can see, there
seems to be no couple component to the employment and support allowance
after the assessment phase. I hope that the Minister will reassure me
that I have got it wrong, but from what I can see, that seems to be the
case. I have some figures, kindly provided by the Child Poverty Action
Group, which illustrate the effect. Under the current regime, a couple
receiving long-term incapacity benefit who become sick before they are
45 receive £152.80 a week including the adult dependant
addition. Under the new regime, if they are on income-based ESA, they
will receive £142.10. That is over £10 a week less.
Worse, if they are on contribution-based ESA, they will receive just
£89.50 a week, which is a massive cut, as everyone here can
appreciate. The
same problem seems to apply to people who become sick after the age of
45. Clearly, that group will be larger. If the figures are
correct—I welcome the Minister’s reassurances if he
thinks that they are—people who become sick between the ages of
35 and 45 currently claim £143.95 under long-term incapacity
benefit with the adult dependant addition, but on income-based ESA,
they will get roughly £2 less, or £142.10. If they are on
contribution-based ESA, they will get £89.50 a week as well.
Those differences are severe. Will the Minister confirm that they are
correct, or at least broadly right, if not to the penny?
I am concerned
that, in addition to all the other perverse incentives against
employment that my hon. Friend and various other Opposition Members
have raised concerns about in our discussions so far, the measures
introduce an incentive against marriage, or against couples who happen
to be ill. That is clearly contrary to public policy, and it is not
something that anybody in this House would want to do, inadvertently or
deliberately. I am sure, therefore, that that cannot be what the
Government intended when they set out to produce this legislation. I
would greatly value the Minister’s reassurance that the figures
are broadly incorrect, that there has been a serious mistake and that
he can furnish us with some correct figures or tell us that the
Government plan to put them right and thereby reduce and remove the
perverse incentive as soon as
possible. 5.24
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan
Shaw): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr Amess. This is my first opportunity to address colleagues in my new
role as Minister with responsibility for disabled people. This is a
timely debate because in a couple of weeks we will see the advent of
the radical reform of the welfare to work agenda with the new ESA
benefit. We
have come a long way in recent years. In 1997, we began setting out the
new deals for young people and the long-term unemployed. We moved on to
assisting
lone parents. Those new programmes have been hugely successful. In 2001,
the new deal for disabled people job broker services were introduced to
support people on disability and incapacity benefits in getting into
work. The
new deal for disabled people represented the first ever systematic
attempt to offer help to people on incapacity benefit with getting back
to work. Colleagues from all parties have supported the principles of
that programme. However, we all know the scale of the problem. In 2003,
2.7 million people of working age were on incapacity benefits. There
was an immense job to do and we needed to take action. That is why we
introduced the first pathways to work pilot. That was the first time
that a mandatory interview was required, combined with a structure of
support for customers on incapacity benefits. The element of
conditionality plus the array of support available through the
programme has been incredibly successful. So far, more than 94,000
people have been helped into
work. Pathways
to work is now available to everyone on incapacity benefit throughout
the country. There has been a huge investment of £1.1 billion to
ensure that the regulations work. There is also an additional
investment of £400 million that the hon. Member for Forest of
Dean asked me to confirm. That is additional money and, as he rightly
said, it will apply over the five-year
period. It
is in the context of that larger picture that the regulations must be
understood. We are putting in place programmes of support that have not
previously existed. People on incapacity benefit have seemingly never
been engaged with before. We are now doing that. The reform of bringing
incapacity benefit and income support into one benefit is a Herculean
task. When it goes live in a couple of weeks, we are confident that it
will have real benefits for
people.
Mr.
Stuart: Could the Minister quickly answer the question put
by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean concerning what the
£400 million covers? Additionally, will he give reassurances
today that if it is not covered in the regulations, action will be
taken very soon to ensure that those who seek work cannot be penalised
for having done so, whether they are in couples or
not? Jonathan
Shaw: The £400 million is to assist people. They
will be entitled to assistance once they have been in the assessment
group for a 13-week period. If the assessment finds that they need
support to find work, they will have that intensively. They will
receive an uplift of an additional £26 up front in a shorter
period than under existing arrangements. Currently, people wait more
than a year before they get an uplift. People stay on a benefit longer
and then they get an uplift after a year. That cannot be right. That is
counter to the culture that we want to engender in the system. People
will get that extra money within the work support group and then they
will get that additional support. They will have regular interviews.
They will be seen by their advisers and helped to find
work. The
hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) asked
me about the punitive measures that we are introducing. It is
reasonable for me to bring him back to when we piloted the pathways to
work. This
was the first time that such a measure had ever been undertaken. It made
a difference. It did not affect huge numbers of people; only a small
number of people saw a reduction in their benefits. But it changed the
culture. That is really important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary
of State often describes how he spoke to someone who had been through
that pathways pilot and conditionality was attached to the benefit. He
had spent many years on incapacity benefit and it was not until the
pilot that someone gave him a push and told him that he had to have the
training and that if he did not take part there would be a danger that
he would lose some of the benefit. He told my right hon. Friend,
“I’ve got a job now. Why did someone not do that for me
years ago?” That gentleman was right. That is the opportunity
that we want to provide for many people because we know that work is
good for
them. Mr.
Harper: May I press the Minister on this because it is
important? I do not think that any Opposition Member is arguing about
people who suffer a loss of income because of conditionality and
because they have not taken part in activity that they are required to
do. We are arguing about people who would have been entitled to a
higher amount on incapacity benefit than they will be on ESA, not
because they have not taken part in something, but because they might
not be able to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Weston-super-Mare said, we are creating a set of incentives where if
someone takes the chance and goes out to work, and then for whatever
reason goes back on to ESA, they will be in a worse position,
particularly if they are on contributory-based ESA and are not
passported to all those additional benefits. That does not give people
an incentive to take the help and support to move into the workplace.
The Minister did not deal with that
point.
Jonathan
Shaw: It would be fair to say that I am painting with a
broad brush. I have some specific points on that example that I will
come to shortly. People will not be affected from the start point of
these new systems. If people are going into work at the moment their
situation will not be prejudiced. I have a whole bundle of answers to
questions that I hope will satisfy hon. Members, but I first want to
paint a broad picture because we have to see these reforms overall. We
are putting in the investment, radically changing the culture. For many
years when people signed on, the state signed off. That cannot be
right. We need to look at people’s abilities rather than simply
saying that they cannot work so that they remain languishing for ever
and a day. That said, we recognise that many people will not be able to
find work and so they will be in the support group of claimants and we
will provide many of them with additional
support. Let
me come to some of the questions. I can confirm that we will make
available the £400 million over the five years. The hon.
Gentleman was concerned about that. That represents £400 million
additional investment on top of the £1.1 billion. We have to
make decisions about the resources available to us. We all know only
too well that things are tight, particularly with the economic
situation, so all Departments are operating within constraints. Despite
that, however, we have made available an additional £400
million.
Mr.
Harper: May I press that important point? Will the
Minister confirm how much money is being spent on incapacity benefits
and the pathways to work programme? What is the trend over the next
five years? When the noble Lord McKenzie answered questions on this in
the Lords, he seemed to be talking about incapacity benefits and
pathways to work, and it was not entirely clear whether he was dealing
with them separately or adding them
together.
Jonathan
Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out of me
whether the £400 million is new money or whether it would be
spent anyway if we continued with the existing system. Is that what he
is
asking?
Mr.
Harper: Let us add together incapacity benefits and
pathways to work and consider what is to be spent over the next five
years. Will it be an increase of £400 million on the two
together or just on ESA compared with incapacity benefit? If it is the
former, a cut in benefits is helping to fund the pathways to work
programme, which is not—I think—what Ministers have led
people to
believe.
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying
his point. Over five years the £400 million is additional spend
on benefits, including earlier payments above IBs. Over three years the
£1.1 billion is for back-to-work support. I hope that that
provides clarification. It will be over and above the money that we are
proposing to
spend. The
hon. Member for Cardiff, Central asked about training. A number of hon.
Members referred to engagement with people who might have a mental
health condition. It is vital that we get communication levels right.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare cited the example of someone who
would be unable to use a telephone. If someone cannot communicate on
the telephone, for a variety of different reasons, they could go to a
Jobcentre Plus office, and can take a support worker or advocate friend
as well. Of course, therefore, we have to make arrangements to engage
effectively with
people. The
hon. Lady asked about a number of specific points, on which I can
provide her with some details. Comprehensive training has been provided
for Jobcentre Plus staff—for those who will be processing ESA
claims in the contact centres and a range of people in Jobcentre Plus
offices who will deal with ESA customers. There has been full staff
training and all have had training on the supporting IT
systems.
| 
