RETIREMENT PENSION OF NON-RESIDENTS

HL Deb 13 July 1999 vol 604 cc190-244

("(1) After subsection (1) of section 113 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be inserted—

"(1A) Subsection (1) shall not disqualify a person absent from Great Britain from receiving a retirement pension under Part II of this Act."

(2) At the end of section 119 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be added—

"(2) No order made under this section may provide for any uprating under section 150 of the Administration Act of retirement pensions under Part II of this Act to be excluded or reduced by reason of the absence from Great Britain of the person entitled to the pension."").

The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who is attending the freedom of information committee, I rise to move this amendment. The proposed new clause deals with the situation of pensioners who have moved abroad, most commonly to Australia, Canada and other countries, and whose pensions are no longer uprated once they have left this country. Therefore, they become nugatory very quickly. Clearly in such cases this leads to fairly considerable hardship and, obviously, there is very strong feeling on the matter. I believe that the matter has been debated in this Chamber on and off many times during the past 11 years—indeed, that is all the time that I have been here—and, I imagine, for a good deal longer.

Of course, governments always respond with the question of cost. It is quite right that they should do so because it is significant. However, the key principle here is reciprocity. Obviously no country wants to be responsible both for its own pensioners living abroad and also for other countries' pensioners who are living within its territories. Moreover, it is a good thing that everyone drawing a pension should have someone who is responsible for uprating it. If that is not the case, the pension very rapidly becomes so small that it is really not of very much use. That, in turn, tends to become a charge on means-tested benefits in the host country. Therefore, if people do not accept the principle of reciprocity, we will have a situation of "beggar my neighbour" out of which everyone loses.

It is my understanding that the Government of Australia do accept responsibility for uprating the pensions of Australian pensioners who live in this country. I believe that the Government ought to follow the principle of reciprocity. If it takes time, they should undertake a certain amount of negotiation; but they should not simply leave the matter as it is. The Minister may remember that, under present law, a good many of these people have votes in this country and they may well cast them. I hope that that will concentrate the Minister's mind wonderfully. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins

Debates on this subject certainly go back a great deal longer than 11 years; indeed, I would hesitate to say quite how long they go back—probably almost as long as the national insurance pension has been in existence. This amendment was drawn to my attention by Mr Paul Lewis who was writing an article for the Weekly Telegraph. He asked me whether I had noticed any amendments on this matter. I said that I would consider any amendments which were tabled. He reported the matter fairly in the article on 6th July 1999. Alas, all journalists are victims of their sub-editors' decisions and I do not believe that the headlines which were attached to the article reflected the views in the article. None the less, I have said that I shall consider this matter. I think we are agreed that this matter has caused considerable concern over the years. We should consider the principles involved.

We have to consider the exact nature of the national insurance pension, as we have done on a number of occasions on this Bill. I think we are all agreed that it is based on the contributory principle; that is to say, in exchange for making contributions one receives some benefits, in this case the national insurance pension. However, I believe that it is also broadly accepted—certainly if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were here, he would stress this point—that it is not an insurance scheme and that the system is not funded. In reality, almost the moment Beveridge introduced the scheme there was a degree of inflation and although part of the pension was covered by contributions, it certainly was not the case that all of it was covered by contributions. It was largely made up by the taxpayer. Historically, that is probably the reason that the then government—and indeed all successive governments—have taken the view that they ought not to uprate those pensions which are drawn overseas in the same way as they uprate pensions at home for the reason that the difference between what was covered by contributions and what was not—certainly the vast bulk of it now is not covered by contributions—was paid by the taxpayer, and the people overseas were no longer paying tax into the general pool out of which the pension was financed.

The other reason was that rates of inflation, to which the uprating is related—if there is no inflation, there is no uprating—differed considerably between the country of origin, the United Kingdom, and wherever individuals migrated to. There are sound reasons of principle here although I understand that the position has been modified in some cases with regard to reciprocity. I hope that the Minister can clarify that position. I believe that reciprocity applies in some countries but not in others.

I hope that I have not misrepresented the article. I have received no formal representations about amendments but I have received a number of letters from people overseas, most of whom stressed the role which they played in the war before they emigrated. Presumably, therefore, they are stressing their military rather than other pensions. I do not know what the position is with regard to uprating military pensions. The noble Earl is right to raise this matter and no doubt the Minister can spell out exactly what the position is. However, despite the remarks which the noble Earl made about voting, I think that people might be rather surprised if I did an immediate U-turn on this issue because of that point. This is a difficult matter and many people who have gone overseas nevertheless retain a great feeling of loyalty to this country and may have fought in its defence. They therefore feel that this issue should be tackled. As I say, no doubt the Government can spell out the position.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I was trying to encourage my noble friend to join this debate but I was not successful.

This new clause has a single and familiar purpose; namely, to attempt to redress the situation where more than half of all UK pensioners living overseas do not receive annual cost-of-living increases in their retirement pensions. I am aware of the importance that some Members of the Committee and pensioners abroad attach to this issue. In return I believe that noble Lords know this Government's position. It is not dissimilar to the position of the previous government and therefore I do not think my response will surprise the Committee.

UK pensions are paid anywhere in the world and we pay some 840,000 pensioners in more than 150 countries. About half of those—some 450,000 of those pensioners—have what is commonly referred to as a "frozen" pension. That means that the pension remains fixed at the rate payable when a person ceases to live permanently in the UK, or at the rate initially awarded on retirement if a person is already resident abroad.

Upratings are paid only within the European economic area (EEA), in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and in about a dozen other countries where certain long-standing—I think mostly pre-1970—social security agreements exist. The policy on pensions abroad has been followed by successive governments ever since retirement pensions and widows' pensions became payable worldwide in 1955. We have made clear—as did the previous government—that changing this policy would not be a priority call on scarce resources. The Social Security Select Committee came to the same conclusion in 1996 when it considered the matter.

We also know that the total likely cost of uprating would be something like £275 million a year for all those affected countries. We do not think that it is a priority call on resources. I am afraid that we do not therefore propose to unfreeze those UK pensions paid abroad.

Earl Russell

I presume that figure of £275 million is a gross cost. I presume it does not include any saving to means-tested benefits arising from reciprocal uprating by other countries. Were we to include that figure, I imagine that it would be extremely different. I do not expect the Minister to enlighten me—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I can give the noble Earl the figures he wants, but the problem (particularly as regards Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada) is the disproportionality between the number of UK pensioners living there as opposed to the number of their pensioners living here. The figures are approximate which is why I think the noble Earl's argument is not valid. According to my latest information, we have something like 205,000 UK pensioners receiving the frozen rate pension in Australia, but only about 17,000 former Australian residents—some of whom may be ex-British servicemen—live in this country under the current arrangements. There is that degree of disproportionality and I understand that it is even wider in South Africa and some other countries. Therefore, although there may be a reciprocal arrangement, that does not necessarily mean that there is equity in payment and that therefore there can be an offsetting with regard to income-related benefits.

Earl Russell

I not only thank the Minister for that answer, I congratulate her on having it at her fingertips. I find that impressive. I accept the point she makes; its justice is, of course, obvious. However, the fact that the netting effect is smaller than perhaps I might have hoped does not mean that that effect is not there. I accept that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a genuine net cost. But were one able to do it, that would be the figure for cost.

Of course I understand the point about scarce resources. But I also understand that it does not improve the reputation of politics as a whole—here I make no party point whatever because it applies to all of us—that we so often see a real mischief and simply do nothing about it. I do not know whether any noble Lords here read Matthew Parris's column about a week ago on Wormwood Scrubs. It dwelt on precisely this point; namely, how discouraging it is that people saw the mischief but did not really feel the impulse to do something about it, and so it continues. It is an old impulse. There is a case in 1628, to which I have referred before, when it was reported that troops who were unpaid were in danger of mutinying. The Lord Lieutenant said that there was no danger of mutiny as the troops were too naked to be seen marching in public. It is a great deal too easy for us to look at something like this and simply say, "Oh dear, it is awfully difficult". Of course it is extremely difficult, but if we want the trust of the people who elect us—and we all do—then we cannot leave too many of these issues unresolved. I hope that the Government will at least give some attention to addressing this problem on an international basis, with reciprocal agreements, possibly bilaterally with each country in turn. It would redress a mischief and it would do something to restore trust in politics. That needs to be done. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 92C not moved.]

[Amendment No. 92D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 52 [Claim or full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview]:

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 92E:

Page 59, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to commission and publication of research into the actions and income of those disentitled to benefit,")

The noble Earl said: In rising to move Amendment No. 92E I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108A, 162A, 163A and 164 which stand in my name.

We come now to the single gateway, the interviews which people are to have before being admitted to benefit. It is my understanding that if they do not have those interviews they simply do not get any benefit. I should be glad if that issue could be clarified because the press material on it has not been entirely consistent. I should hope to hear that there will be a loss of benefits for not attending the interview according to the words of the Labour Party manifesto and not according to the wording of the Prime Minister's speech in Amsterdam of February 1997. I should be very glad to hear that.

We have some fairly big questions arising out of the single gateway and some fairly technical questions that follow on behind. The big questions are about the nature of entitlement to benefit: how far the obligation is—as Mr Frank Field has been suggesting for some time—a contractual one and how far it is an entitlement arising from the state's duty to protect the population of the country. Is it an absolute entitlement or a conditional one? If conditional, how severe are the conditions that may be imposed?

We on these Benches have discussed the matter at considerable length. We hold the view as a party that it is not right for people to set out to draw benefit simply for doing nothing. At the same time we also hold the view both that total disentitlement is liable to have quite severe and possibly, in some cases, disproportionate effects, and that disentitlement is something which should be done with extreme caution, especially with numerous categories of vulnerable people. The purpose of the amendments is to put a string of conditions on the use of the disentitlement under the single gateway.

Amendment No. 92E seeks to insert a commencement clause—a condition precedent, as it is called; something which must happen before the disentitlement comes into force; namely, the commission and publication of research into the actions and incomes of those disentitled to benefit. I will come back to that in a moment.

Amendment No. 108A is a fairly straightforward provision of hardship allowance. I do not think that it needs too much explanation. Amendment No. 164 comes to the purpose of Amendment No. 92E by a different route. It requires a series of pilot studies of the effect of disentitlement to benefit; those studies to be commissioned and reported before the commencement clause comes into force. Amendment Nos. 162A and 163A are the new commencement clauses which are consequent upon these amendments. So we have two separate routes of pursuing the same objective.

The question of what happens to people disentitled to benefit is crucial to any cost-benefit analysis of how far disentitlement to benefit should go. The Minister knows that I have pressed her on this matter frequently. Research has only recently become available. The Demos report Destination Unknown deals with the very large number of people who are not entitled to benefit, not in education, not in training and not in employment. Most unwisely, I picked up the wrong pile of notes when I came in this morning, having been in the Chamber until one o'clock last night, so I do not have the exact figures with me. But among 16 and 17 year-olds the figure was, I think, 65,000; and for 18 to 24 year-olds I think it was a six-figure figure.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

It was 161,000.

Earl Russell

I am most grateful to the Minister. It was 161,000, so my recollection was at least ball-park accurate.

That is quite a lot of people. The report has done a certain amount of work on their housing; it has done none whatever on their source of income or visible means of support. The majority of these people are not dead; clearly they must be making a living out of something. It is material to assessing the effect of what we are doing to know whether these people are sponging on friends; whether they are begging in the Strand; whether they are, as some people do, pushing drugs in order to make a living out of that; whether they are selling their bodies; whether they are taking part in crime. Among 16 and 17 year olds disentitled to benefits in South Glamorgan, the word "shopping" normally means "shoplifting". I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, once reproving me for being "shockingly cynical" simply for quoting that factual observation. But if that is their situation, that is their situation. Shoplifting concerns not only them but adds on average 1 per cent to supermarket prices. So if we do not all pay for it one way, we all pay for it another. That is a principle which applies to a great deal of legislation.

I have no idea of the respective scale of these various ways of coping with disentitlement. I do not know very much—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with his Centrepoint experience, may tell us a little more—about what happens to disentitled people in the way of houses. The CHAR report on youth homelessness was not particularly encouraging in that respect.

There is substance in the point made by the Demos report that if people are marginalised, especially in youth, it takes them a very long time to work their way back again; the disadvantage lasts all the way through life. There is a possibility that apart from any hardship—to which we should not be indifferent—there may be a severe loss to the Exchequer.

The Department of Social Security has always said with some pride that it monitors the effects of all its policies. In general it lives up to that claim. However, on the effects of disentitlement, I do not understand how the Department of Social Security can monitor the effects of its policies if it does not know what those effects are. That is the central thrust of the amendment.

I admit that the methodology of the necessary research will be extremely difficult. However, if we look at some privately commissioned research—the South Glamorgan TEC study; or the Nottingham young people's benefit campaign report; or some of the studies published by the Bridge project in the University of Edinburgh; or the MORI report on 16 and 17 year olds published in 1991 by the DSS—the methodological difficulties can to an extent be overcome. Before we go ahead with a measure like this it would be a good idea to try. We really should know what we are doing when we do something like this. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe

I have considerable sympathy with this group of amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In principle, the single work-focused gateway is welcome. It builds on the principle behind the jobseeker's allowance, which we instituted when in government. However, with the Government's present proposals, there remains a huge question mark over whether in practice they will achieve what they set out to do.

This group of amendments in essence asks the Government to hold back this Bill, pending an opportunity to discuss and review the pilot schemes. Will they be a success or a failure? Can we really assess within the time-frame the degree of success, or otherwise, of these pilot schemes? How will they work, particularly for the disabled, who will need an enormous amount of support and reassurance in order to cope? How will the training of personal advisers develop over the long term and how will the Government realistically resource people who are suited to this level of responsibility as personal advisers in sufficient numbers for the long term?

On these Benches we believe that we should all have the opportunity to discuss and debate the results of the pilot schemes before the "one" process, which is now referred to, is fully implemented for the long term. If we do not properly analyse where this process is going and how the pilot schemes are working, we believe that the Government will run into serious difficulties for the long term, in the same way as they are now finding themselves in difficulties with the New Deal for lone parents. In that regard, after two years the New Deal for lone parents still has a success rate of only one in 10. Each job created by the scheme costs nearly £15,000.

This clearly shows that at present the Government's Welfare to Work programme is simply not working. Although compelling people to attend interviews is welcome to some degree, it will not be the "magic bullet" that Ministers pretend. These amendments also deal with what lies on the other side of the single work-focused gateway. What happens if claimants fail to attend an interview? Is an interview all that is required before settling back into the benefits system, for some, for the long term? What happens to those who fail to turn up and have their benefits reduced? And reduced by whom and by how much?

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said, there are a number of questions and technical points which need to be addressed. Do those who do not turn up or remain outside the system end up on the street? Is that the Government's intention? We think not—in which case it makes sense now to pull back and reconsider while the pilot schemes are under way. We are now reading in the press references to a wish and a will on the part of some members of this Government to now—and I quote from the Independent of 5th July 1999, undertake a wholesale review of welfare", with a pledge from Mr Robin Cook to "look again", for example, at the way in which disabled people would be interviewed at job centres. If that is the case, we welcome it, although we question why the Government have gone this far if they are still so uncertain about the sensitivity and the fairness of the single gateway process. Perhaps after considering for 18 years in opposition how they might change our welfare system, they now feel under pressure after two years in government to move ahead without enough consideration of the likely consequences.

We ask the Government to think again about these processes. Indeed, I shall be returning to some of these points, and others, in connection with later amendments. We urge the Government to proceed cautiously and to listen carefully to the arguments that are being put forward, both as regards further clarification of the process and for making proper allowances, in particular for the disabled, at every stage of the process.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Davies of Coity

This is a Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and that, of course, requires reform of welfare. The cornerstone of the Labour Government is to take people off welfare and into work. I see this interview process as supporting that. People will be interviewed and will be given some opportunities of finding jobs which previously seemed out of reach. It is a question of providing them with choices—not threats—and with opportunities. Of course, it is a not a golden bullet and the Bill will not be a magic wand, but it is a start to taking people away from dependency into independence and finding them jobs.

There are lots of disabled people out there who are currently claiming benefit and who would like to work. Opportunities are not available to them. If the interviewing system will provide them with opportunities they never thought they would have, that has got to be good. Lone parents and single parents, mainly women, would like to have a job but they cannot find work which also enables them to cater for then-home responsibilities. This interview process will give them that opportunity and there is no suggestion here that, if you do not get a job arising out of the interview, you will lose benefit. There may be some related discipline as regards taking the interview and putting some of your benefit at risk, but that is only for the purpose of the interview. It seems to me right and proper, if we are to get people off dependency on welfare and into work, that every opportunity is explored. That has to be a very good thing.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I welcome the principle of the single gateway. On this occasion I shall confine myself to speaking in support of Amendment No. 164, which was the last of the batch of the amendments to which the noble Earl spoke.

Its effect is to ensure that the new gateway interview pilot schemes are fully and properly assessed before the regulations are finalised. I commend the Government for taking part in pilot schemes. It is always a brave government who do such things. When I was a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, I was always pressing some of my colleagues to take part in pilot schemes and was very relieved when they did so. I am also aware that people like me, who press governments to take part in pilot schemes, often then go one step further and make a government's life difficult by saying, "But now we want to see the results of the scheme". That is precisely what I intend to do today.

The pilot schemes are intended to last for three years. We were told that in June, last month, four were to be launched. I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister can tell us whether they were launched and, if so, in which particular areas, so that we know which types of claimant are benefiting from those schemes. Have we any news of them so far? Of course, after such a short time progress is bound to be limited, but I am aware of the diligence with which the Department of Social Security monitors pilot schemes. The call centre and the private voluntary sector pilots, we were told, will be launched in November 1999. Can the Minister confirm that is still the target date?

The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is asking why the Government are rushing into national implementation as early as April next year. At that stage it thinks that we will have only preliminary findings on the basic model pilots. The initial findings of the call centre and the private voluntary sector pilots will not be available until next summer, and the final evaluation reports on all the pilots naturally cannot be published until 2002. In that interval one is aware that the Government are pressing ahead with more than one model of single gateway system, so that different people will be subject to different methods of interview. In some areas, it will be the generalist adviser model, despite at the same time running pilots with dedicated personal advisers for lone parents and disabled people.

Will the Government consider accepting the RNID recommendation that the national implementation of the single gateway should be delayed until the Government have been able properly to evaluate whether the specialist or the generalist personal adviser model is the more effective?

Lord Haskel

I was rather worried that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed concern about the value of interviews. Interviews have been standard practice in the private sector for many years. It is the way in which the private sector sets about empowering its people. Staff are interviewed regularly to find out what is necessary as regards training, prospects and people's needs. Over the years it has been found that, as a result, people perform much better and receive far better satisfaction from their work.

I welcome the Government's attempt to introduce this practice into the public sector. The Government are trying to encourage people to move from welfare into work. This system is well tried in the private sector and over the years has been shown to work. There is no reason to believe that it will not work in the public sector. I applaud it. It enables people to make informed decisions and has been highly successful. It is common practice in most well run companies in this country.

Baroness Buscombe

We are not against the principle of interviewing. Indeed, in principle, we are supportive of the whole process. However, we are deeply concerned about the detail of this provision. We should be looking to see how the pilot schemes "pan out" before the scheme is fully implemented. That applies particularly to people who have multifarious problems, especially the disabled. As presently drafted, the Bill does not take account of those people. That is what we want to discuss in some detail.

Lord Haskel

The disabled and those with particular problems are the very people who probably need the interviewing process most.

Earl Russell

If I may save the Committee some time, what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said for her Benches, I say for these Benches too. No objection is raised to the principle of the interview. The concerns about the practice will be addressed shortly by my noble friend Lord Addington. The amendment addresses our concern about what will happen to those who do not attend an interview. The amendments request no more than information. I hope that that clears the air a little.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

That is a helpful addition to the debate.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the worrying loss of young people who are not in work, not in education or training, and not on benefit. He therefore suggested that given that they will, as he told the Committee, insist inconveniently on living, they will find their source of support elsewhere. The noble Earl also agrees—I am glad that he does—that people should not be entitled to draw benefit, in his words, simply for doing nothing. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, there comes a point with wilful non-compliance when people must take responsibility for their actions.

I share the noble Earl's concern about such young people. We know the background that they are likely to come from. They are more likely to come from fractured homes, to be in care, and to have a school record of truanting. That suggests that if we are to rescue them, intervention has to occur at a much earlier stage than merely at the point of entitlement to benefit. That is one of the reasons why the Government are currently investing—I use the word advisedly—£540 million in the Sure Start programme, so that children do not start school ready to vote with their feet if they come from the kind of background I have described.

As the noble Earl will be aware, Clause 52 deals with every group that may come before the Benefits Agency except young people; those come within JSA. In other words, it deals with those who are disabled, lone parents, widows and the like. It does not deal with the young people to whom the noble Earl refers. The noble Baroness—

Earl Russell

If the Minister will forgive me for intervening, I was drawing on evidence from young people simply because there is more available. The problems, the alternatives for those who have no benefit, are general.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I was merely saying, in so far as this has become almost a clause stand part debate, that the clause does not affect young people who are JSA claimants; it affects the other groups.

I welcome the thoughtful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It was an impressive debut on this subject. The noble Baroness referred to the New Deal for lone parents. I contest her figures. She mentioned a success rate of one in 10. That is not true. The scheme is voluntary; therefore, people do not have to reply to an invitation to attend for interview. But of those who do, 88 per cent—not one in 10—join the programme. Figures up to March 1999 indicate that some 12,700 jobs have been found by them as a result.

This is a new programme. Inevitably, the costs are front-end loaded and therefore they will inevitably be high at the beginning. There will be a formal evaluation in autumn 1999 which will indicate the cost-benefit figures. By that stage we should have a more realistic assumption of the actual costs.

The programme is a success. I know that, having met many of the lone parents and their advisers. As many have said to me time and again, the New Deal programme has turned their lives around. Without it, they and their children would have been much worse off.

Many of the points I proposed to make were eloquently made by my noble friends Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Haskel. On the wider issue of interviews, I am glad that the notion of the interview as part of the process of first claiming benefit has been widely accepted by the Committee. This group of amendments seeks to delay the introduction of mandatory work-focused interviews or, I am afraid, to dilute their impact. Amendment No. 108A would ensure that a person who failed to take part in a mandatory interview would remain fully entitled to benefit if the impact of any penalty would cause the claimant or his or her family any hardship. Amendments Nos. 92E, 162A and 163A would delay the introduction until further research has been conducted on the action and income of those disentitled to benefit. Amendment No. 164 would delay introduction until the voluntary phase of the pilot schemes had been properly evaluated.

Before turning to evaluation research, perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 108. I share the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the provision, particularly on groups of disabled people. But, as my noble friends rightly said, this is not a threat; it is an opportunity. It is not about being forced into work or being disentitled to benefit; it is about providing people with the help that they need: possibly to help them plan to return to work; to claim benefits that they may not know about; or, for example, to engage the support of organisations of which they may not be aware.

Perhaps I may give one example. Research suggests that some 60 per cent of people who use the social security system, who are unemployed, disabled or whatever, believe that if they were to go to work they would lose their housing benefit, full stop. Therefore, they are not willing to risk going to work. However, that is not true. They will not lose their housing benefit. Their housing benefit will be adjusted accordingly. The opportunity of an interview during which some of those concerns can be explored and addressed is vitally important if we are to ensure that people know what are the opportunities for work; what benefits they are entitled to but are not currently claiming; and what support organisations, advice and help may be available to them. That is what we are doing.

The regulations under Clause 52 would simply impose a requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. We do not believe that to be an onerous requirement. We are only asking people to participate in the interviews so that they will know what they hitherto possibly did not know.

There will be sanctions for those who refuse to participate. But we believe that if they do not take part in the interview, they will not, so to speak, have signed up for their benefit. To avoid any penalty, a person who has refused to participate without good cause has only to change his behaviour to become entitled again—in other words, attend an interview. The provision is not about penalising people; it is about helping them. But we believe that the interview is the gateway through which they should pass in order to receive their benefits.

I should like reassure Members of the Committee that we have put in place numerous mechanisms to protect the most vulnerable claimants. I do not doubt that they will be explored during our debates today. We believe that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that everyone has an ample opportunity to participate, and to protect them if they have good reason not to do so.

First, "one" service staff will be able to postpone the requirement to have an interview where it would be inappropriate to expect someone to have an immediate discussion about work with a personal adviser. The individual may be recovering from an operation or perhaps has recently had a child or been bereaved.

Secondly, where a claimant is required to have a work-focused interview, it can take place in the claimant's home where that is more appropriate. If he or she wants to have an advocate at the meeting, that is perfectly acceptable. The claimant is entirely within his or her right in that regard.

Thirdly, we shall not cut off benefits arbitrarily. Only after a third failure to attend and take part in an interview will benefit be withdrawn. Claimants will have clearly explained to them the consequences of failure to participate and they will be encouraged to take part.

Fourthly, there will be a comprehensive, and non-exhaustive, "good cause" provision to ensure that claimants are not penalised if there are reasonable grounds for failing to take part.

Finally, where a decision is made that a claimant has not taken part in an interview, he or she will have the ability to appeal it under the new dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Social Security Act 1998. The claimant will also have a further right of appeal against the decision to an independent appeal tribunal. We believe that that balances rights and responsibilities.

I deal next with Amendments Nos. 92E, 162A and 163A. These amendments seek to delay the introduction of compulsory interviews until further research has been conducted on the actions and incomes of those who are disentitled to benefit. The noble Earl made clear that he was talking primarily about young people because that was where there was the greatest evidence to that effect. I have a great deal of sympathy with the focus of the amendments on research and evaluation I agree that we must evaluate the pilots properly and take account of research before taking decisions about national roll-out. We want to provide the best possible service to claimants. For that reason, we shall see what works and the effect of our policies on the development of the service.

We have already spent considerable sums on evaluating related policies and have published the research. I refer to statistics on the New Deal and research into the operation of JSA, which includes data on those who are disallowed, for, for example not meeting labour market conditions. The research was designed to provide a detailed understanding of the attitudes of disallowed and sanctioned people, their knowledge of the benefit rules, and the consequences of disallowance and sanctions. Some of that research, which I have read recently, shows that what clients particularly want is the opportunity to have face-to-face contact and better information about what is expected of them and to be talked through the implications of what happens if they do not follow a particular path. In the light of that research, that is precisely what we aim to provide through the "one" service. We hope that the first qualitative findings on non-compulsory pilots will be available by the summer of next year. Information on the compulsory pilots will come somewhat later. The quantitative findings from the compulsory schemes will be available from the summer of 2001.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me where the schemes were taking place. We are starting with four basic model pilots in south-east Essex, Warwickshire, the Clyde coast and Renfrew and Lea Roding. Together, they involve some 147,000 people respectively. In November, we expect to enter into the two other kinds of scheme, one concerned with the private and voluntary sectors and the other with the call centres. They will deal with 164,000 people and 174,000 people. In that way, we can learn from the telephone responses and the involvement of the voluntary organisations in comparison with the basic model run by BA/ES and local authority staff. Those schemes started in late June. Therefore, we hope to have the qualitative findings by the summer of next year. Given the number of people involved, reliable quantitative findings will not be available until the summer of 2001.

I turn to Amendment No. 164. We are spending a substantial amount on the evaluation of the pilots which do not merely count the numbers who go in to work but look also at qualitative research. We shall follow it through carefully. I understand the concern of the noble Earl that failure to meet the entirely reasonable requirements as a condition of claiming benefit could lead to disentitlement, crime and social exclusion. However, we are placing numerous safeguards in place. We believe that the impact of penalties will be properly monitored during our evaluation of the "one" pilots. We are satisfied that the requirements of Clause 52 are reasonable. If, on the basis of the pilots, we believe that we should not go ahead with national roll-out, we shall not do so. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay said, that is the point of pilots. We want to see whether this works and whether we can get a loop of learning back into practice and process before any decision is made on how to go forward.

At the core of it is our belief that for too long the benefits service has been a passive service in which people have not been given the opportunity to have the information they need to make informed choices, particularly if they are disabled, lone parents or have been widowed. We want to provide that information, and to that end we want them to attend interviews. As my noble friends have repeated, for disabled people and lone parents no action needs to be taken following that interview. The only requirement is to turn up at the interview itself. But we want to be sure that people know what the options are so that when they come to make choices, they are informed ones. We shall evaluate this matter both qualitatively and quantitatively under the "one" scheme. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

5 p.m.

Earl Russell

This has worked as a Committee stage should. A Committee stage should be a negotiating process, and we have been doing that to very good purpose. Before I turn to the remarks of the Minister, many of which I found extremely helpful, I should like to refer to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Haskel. There is nothing in those speeches which is incompatible in any way with these amendments and, therefore, nothing on which I need take issue.

We on these Benches do not in any sense object to the process of interviews or the idea that people should do something in return for benefits. We are concerned with what happens if they do not. Once one says that as a matter of moral principle they should attend these interviews when asked to do so, the decision as to what to do instead must depend to a large extent on assessing the consequences of any action that is taken.

Lord Davies of Coity

It may be that the concept of an interview does not recognise the reality of the circumstances. People who claim benefit are involved in an interview anyway and an assessment of their circumstances is made. They have to initiate the exercise by making a claim. It is not as if this process is a separate part of it. I believe asking what happens if people do not attend the interview makes too much of the reality of the circumstances.

Earl Russell

I am grateful for that contribution which factually I believe to be extremely fair. But the fact remains that we are contemplating the possibility of a benefit penalty. The one matter on which I did not hear from the Minister—perhaps she can enlighten me—was with regard to an indication of the size of penalty.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

It is exactly as my noble friend expressed it so clearly. If someone fails to attend the interview as a result of which he or she will draw benefit, no benefit will be paid because the individual has not signed up for it, as it were. The interview is an integral part of the claim. If the individual has not claimed, he or she cannot get the benefit. However, if someone who is already drawing benefit fails to turn up at a trigger point or periodic interview, say, six months, two years or five years down the line, there will be a sanction. Drawing an analogy with the social security system, the sanction will be either 20 per cent or 40 per cent.

Earl Russell

I am grateful for that helpful answer. One comes back to the problem of consequences. We have no objection to the requirement to attend the interview or to the idea that something should happen to the claimant if he does not turn up. However, as to what that "something" should be, I believe that we must take account of consequences. To assess those consequences we need information, which is what these amendments seek to achieve. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for their extremely thoughtful and interesting speeches. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her support for Amendment No. 164.

We have a real question here. In order to decide what is the right thing to do, we should know the consequences. I do not see how we can know the consequences unless the research is done. If the research is not undertaken, it will be extremely difficult to decide the right thing to do. Inevitably some people will fail to attend the interviews. That may be because they are bloody minded (if the Committee will forgive the phrase).

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. How does the noble Earl distinguish between that situation and one involving an individual who is theoretically entitled to a benefit that he does not claim? All we say is that if someone does not come for the interview, he is not claiming the benefit. That is his right. He may choose not to do that. If he does not know about the interview, it is our responsibility to make sure that he knows about it. The position is no different from the present situation where someone is theoretically entitled to a benefit he does not claim. My noble friend rightly says that the interview is embedded in the claim process.

Baroness Turner of Camden

Can the Minister clarify the provision in the Bill which refers to, a requirement to take part in such an interview as a condition of that person continuing to be entitled to the full amount which is payable to him"?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

If a new entrant to the benefits system seeks to claim a benefit, the interview is an integral part of that claiming process. It may well be that for decent reasons, at which we have hinted but may wish to probe further, that interview may need to be deferred on grounds of the individual' s health, sickness, disability, or his personal circumstances. If that person then fails to come for an interview in order to change from temporary to permanent benefit, that benefit will stop.

Equally, if there is what we call a periodic call-hack—perhaps requiring a lone parent to come back when his or her youngest child is five or 11 and he or she fails to do so—the penalty sanctions there are analogous to the existing penalties in the social security system, which can be sanctions of 20 per cent or 40 per cent depending on the circumstances. That is being looked at.

We seek to say that if a person does not attend for the original interview or we have deferred that interview for decent cause, then he has not established his claim to entitlement to the benefit; therefore the benefit does not flow.

We keep talking about sanctions. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepts the description offered by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, it should not be seen as an issue of sanctions. It is about giving people the opportunities for information, face-to-face contact, and the named personal adviser that lone parents, young people, and disabled people tell us, in the research undertaken, is missing from the current social security system and which they very much want to have. We are giving them the opportunity for that face-to-face help which will allow them to make informed choices about their work, benefits, the support they may need and how they see their future life. It allows people to regain control over their own lives; to re-own them. But they can do that only if they have the information on which to base it.

I hope that we shall not view the issue as negative, as sanctions. It is positive. It is opportunity. It is quality service from which we hope people can again have autonomy over they own lives.

5.15 p.m.

Earl Russell

I think that the Minister is trying to entangle me in the problem of the St Lawrence/Mississippi watershed. From my use of that example, she may remember that that watershed is in ground so flat that any slope is invisible. Yet the rain that lands on one side of it goes into the Gulf of Mexico; and the rain that lands on the other side goes into the North Atlantic. I accept that there is a very flat area in the middle here. But we are being given a new condition of entitlement to benefit; and the Bill spells that out.

Also, the language of sanctions has been introduced by Members of the Government themselves. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has used that language, for example, when he spoke on "On the Record" a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has used that language. If the language is inappropriate, the Ministers who have used it might be wise to say so. But if it is used, I am tempted to take it seriously.

I wonder whether the difference may be in the letter which goes out to a person who has not attended an interview. In the past, in the course of an occasional campaign, such a person might have received a letter saying, "You are probably entitled to benefit". He might now receive a letter saying, "You have not met a condition of benefit".

We are all familiar with small differences which cross a watershed. I think that this probably does. All I am asking for is information. I am still asking for information. However, I do not think that I shall get it today, so meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 93:

Page 59, line 14, at end insert ("save where a person has a mental illness diagnosis")

The noble Lord said: We now turn to the specifics of the rather general debate that we have had. Amendment No. 93 refers to, a person [who] has a mental illness diagnosis".

Amendment No. 94 refers to, a person [who] has been an in-patient of a mental illness hospital within the previous three months".

No matter how well the interview is conducted, it may put undue pressure on this group of people. The amendments do not address the question of trying to get the person to an interview, or how it should be conducted, but of whether that interview will extract the information to which the Minister referred.

I think we can accept that properly conducted interviews can potentially do far more good than harm. However, these individuals may not be able to handle the concept of an interview. A severely depressed person who is worried about the fact that he cannot function as he should or used to do will regard an interview as a form of torture. If he regards it in that way, it does not matter what one does in the interview, one will not gain the correct information. Someone who is manic will give false information. He may say, "I can do everything. Wonderful—life's great". A manic depressive will go through those two cycles.

That is why I suggest that these two exemptions should be included in the legislation, or that they should be provided for in guidance. There is a grave danger that one will obtain the wrong information. One will not have the interchange which allows the system to be honed to the needs of those individuals. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe

I support Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Following debate on the previous amendment, it is important that I clarify that while we and disability organisations believe that engaging disabled people—engaging all people—in the gateway and encouraging them to find work is important and right, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into interviews which they do not feel well enough to attend. The amendments address a genuine concern with regard to those caught by this clause. We do not believe that they should be forced to attend this "one" process in order to receive their benefit. We appreciate that there is a provision for some people not to have an interview, or to have it deferred because the interview would not be helpful or appropriate.

We understand that the circumstances will be set out in regulations. The Minister has already stated that a number of people would not have an immediate interview: those who are recently bereaved; and lone parents with very young children. I think we all agree that people with heavy caring commitments have to be considered, and those suffering from acute illness, or a severe mental illness. In such cases people would be given an adviser who would follow up the question of possible work at a later stage. But we are concerned with the prospect of making the personal adviser interview compulsory and linking it to the claim process. We believe that people should have access to advice and support and be free to use it at a time when it is most helpful to them; otherwise, people will feel threatened, especially those with an invisible disability, such as mental distress. It could be damaging to their mental health and there is a real risk that the claims of some vulnerable people will fall by default if they are not well enough to deal with calls to an interview.

It is perhaps worth noting at this point the possible number of claimants who may be affected by this clause and who may find the "one" process immensely stressful and too difficult a hurdle to surmount. One in four of the adult population will experience some form of mental health problem in any year.

If the noble Minister were not minded to accept these amendments, then a related concern—that of the training of personal advisers—must also be addressed. Realistically, can personal advisers be trained to such a degree as to be competent to respond to the very special needs of these people? If people are already receiving incapacity benefit and/or severe disablement allowance, they will have already been assessed, probably with the benefit of medical reports, perhaps numerous reports, and certificates confirming this inability to work. Indeed, I will turn to this very point under our Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.

There is also a problem of accessibility for interviews for the disabled in particular. May I suggest that the home is not necessarily the panacea? It can be felt to be intrusive and uncomfortable for a claimant to have such an interview taking place in his or her home. We shall return to this and other matters raised in connection with these amendments in later amendments on this clause.

Regard should be given to the cost of this whole process: training of advisers, administering "one", where, for example, the home visits are preferred and for those with certain ailments where the claimant is subject to relapses and remission. There is no doubt that the whole interview process will be prolonged, often over an unforeseeable period of time, placing a considerable burden upon personal advisers. The cost of administering multiple interviews necessary to respond to changing and unforeseen needs must be considered.

Taking the specific wording proposed by these amendments, while we are supportive of the principle that they address, that of protecting those who are clearly not equipped to deal with the "one" process, I question whether they would achieve their aim as drafted. In other words, are the right criteria being applied where a person has a mental illness diagnosis and/or where a person has been an in-patient of a mental illness hospital within the last three months? Surely it would be much simpler and probably less expensive to apply a straightforward test: is the claimant already in receipt of incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, and invalid care allowance, in which case they will already have been assessed and therefore it would be much more straightforward and much easier to assess. I shall return to this point under our proposed Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I have much sympathy for the amendments in so far as they apply to mental illnesses and I declare an interest, having been associated with the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (NSF) for many years. It and three other organisations concerned with mental illness have made clear their comments on this part of the Bill. They recommend that people with mental illnesses should not be subject to compulsory interviews but that the interviews should be voluntary. That seems very sensible. Voluntary interviews might well be extremely helpful in their cases.

It is not possible to generalise about people with mental illnesses. Cases can be very different, as can the symptoms, some of them not visible, and the circumstances can also be very different. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Buscombe about the incidence of stress in the circumstances of being summoned to an interview. Therefore, I would ask the Government to consider very carefully whether, in the categories of cases which I and the noble Lord have indicated, the interviews should be voluntary and not compulsory.

Lord Thurlow

My Lords, I should like very strongly to support this amendment. I think that the case of the severely mentally ill, especially schizophrenics, puts them into a totally different category. There is no way by which they can be fitted into the existing system as it stands. The noble Baroness has explained that there are very many safeguards and provisions for discretion and so on, but I do not see how the severely schizophrenic patient could possibly be fitted into this system.

I speak, as I think the noble Baroness is aware, from considerable personal experience of care for a severely schizophrenic case. I cannot imagine how my son would have been able to go through this system without creating very great embarrassment for everybody concerned in the interviewing process. If in the Bill there were a separate category, a separate compartment, into which the severely mentally ill—in particular those diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia—were put to be dealt with by advisers who had received considerable training for dealing with the mentally ill, that would be rather a different matter. But I cannot see that it is even fair to the interviewers to expect them to be able to handle such people.

The noble Baroness is aware that the kind of patients to whom I refer are really very difficult to deal with. One simply does not know how they will react. They are also, as one of the symptoms of their disease, highly irresponsible, and they usually find it impossible to deal with correspondence of any kind. I do not wish to suggest that there is a real danger of violence, because this has been so much overdone in the press, but there is a residual possibility of violence, so I should like to appeal to the noble Baroness to treat this amendment as a special case.

The Earl of Listowel

My Lords, I too should strongly like to support this amendment. I sit in on assessments for young homeless people and my concern, which goes rather beyond this amendment, is that some of these, while not exactly classifiable as having a mental illness, are obviously very distressed. We are talking now about older people, but I imagine those too may well be distressed. When I attend these interviews sometimes the interviewer is very sensitive. He will say something like, "I appreciate this must be a difficult experience for you." He may say, "I know sometimes it is difficult for you to leave home", and the person being interviewed will say, "Yes. Sometimes I just do not want to leave the house".

Sometimes there are sensitive interviewers who try to make the experience, which can be distressing, easy on the applicant. Sometimes the interviewers are not sensitive. They may be falsely jokey about the procedure and the applicant, who is stressed by the experience, is made to feel worse. I agree with the amendment and ask the Minister to explain how she will ensure that people who are mentally ill or in a good deal of distress are sensitively treated when they attend the interviews.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Rowallan

I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I believe that from the point of view of mental patients, Clause 52 is frightening. The Bill prevents thousands of people with severe mental illness accessing the financial support that they require to regain and sustain their mental health.

Even worse, in some cases changes create additional barriers and stress. I am concerned that the effects of the interview will cause great problems for the mentally ill. The lack of understanding of severe mental illness and its effects was eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is a serious problem which needs to be considered most carefully. There is an extreme likelihood that some people will be so unwell that they will be unaware of the impending interview and too ill to attend on the day. They will have a fear of losing their benefits as a result.

Amendment No. 93 does not prevent them attending on a voluntary basis and therefore I believe that the Government should be able to support it. Amendment No. 94 is also important. It, too, has a voluntary basis, but it is essential that on leaving hospital a mental patient is given time to settle down at home. The time when such patients first arrive home is the most stressful of all. They do not have immediate access to nursing staff and perhaps their medicines are beginning to wear off or have side-effects. It is an extremely stressful time and the time when the highest number of suicides occur. That must be considered. I believe that the interviewing of mentally ill people must be seriously considered, as should the whole of Clause 52.

Lord Haskel

I share the concerns of Members of the Committee about the dangers of the interview for mentally ill people. However, there is another danger; that of stereotyping people. Tonight, we are stereotyping and assuming what their reactions will be. With too many exceptions, that is exactly what happens and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear that in mind.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

too, have great sympathy with Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I have never been a carer; nor do I have experience or working with organisations which represent the mentally ill, as do my noble friends Lord Rowallan and Lord Campbell or Croy. I have only been a lay member of appeal tribunals considering incapacity benefit. In that capacity, I was always keenly aware of the importance of not stereotyping anyone who came before the tribunal and of the dangers of so doing. As a layman, I was also aware of the difficulty of making assessments on behalf of people who have mental illnesses, some of which express themselves in different ways at different times and in different ways to different people. I am sure that we shall return to that issue when dealing with Amendment No. 106 relating to the training of advisers.

My noble friend Lord Rowallan spoke effectively of the difficulty facing people who are recently discharged in-patients who have received some form of treatment. As he said, the risk of suicide and self-harm is particularly high at the point of discharge. Almost one-quarter of the suicides covered by this year's national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness occurred within three months of discharge from hospital, with the highest number in the first week. The suicide risk after discharge is 213 times greater than that of the general population for men and 134 times greater for women.

That evidence was provided to me by MIND and MACA. As those organisations point out, the evidence provides the strongest possible case for people nor to be approached for a compulsory interview which may be perceived as threatening within at least three months of discharge. I hope that the Government will look favourably on Amendment No. 94.

Lord Davies of Coity

I am extremely sympathetic to the arguments advanced in protection of people with mental illness who may be subjected to greater stress. However, I must return to my earlier remarks, recognising that we are concerned with people in receipt of benefit. They will have made an application and undergone an interview for benefit. The range of mental illness is enormous. Perhaps at one end there will be the schizophrenic and at the other the educationally subnormal. Anyone conducting an interview—

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was about to make a better point than I, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, may not have meant to refer to those who are educationally subnormal in the same range as those who are mentally ill. Perhaps the noble Lord was grouping two things together at the same time.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

In terms of classification by category for invalidity benefit, they are indeed grouped together.

Lord Davies of Coity

I apologise if what I said was offensive. I wanted to point out that the range of mental illness can be such that some people can fulfil occupations and go to work. Indeed, they want the opportunity to have work presented to them. However, at the other end of the spectrum, someone else would not be in that position. We must give credit to those who will be conducting the interviews; those involved in providing benefit for people with mental illness. At the risk of stereotyping certain classes of people, it is not necessary to express that intention in the Bill.

Lord Rowallan

Surely the whole point of the amendment is that such people can attend voluntarily. We do not insist on compulsory measures, but are saying that someone who is mentally incapable of attending an interview at a particular time should be respected and not lose his benefit as a result of ill health.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The debate has been most thoughtful and at times moving. Our difficulty is that we are not dealing with a particular category but with a range of people who may have moved on to incapacity benefit for reasons of stress or depression, which is alleviated once they leave the job, through to manic depression, schizophrenia and severe states which even with drug therapy do not permit a person to re-enter the labour market.

We are dealing with a wide sweep of people, which is why I find the amendments difficult. I want to support their intention, but I do not believe that they can do what they seek. Mental illness may range from relatively mild stress, which makes it impossible for someone to work, to severe schizophrenia. The full range of people, including those with modest learning difficulties, would not be expected to attend an interview.

We are trying to avoid categorising people or stereotyping them on the basis of the benefit that they would normally get or their type of disability or handicap. We want to move away from that rigid categorisation because it does not give us the capacity to treat people holistically.

When a claim is first made, we will not necessarily know whether the claimant falls into the relevant category. As my noble friends have rightly said, mentally ill people who currently want to receive benefit have to engage with the claim process for incapacity benefit or disability living allowance. They have access to the support of their carer, their family or their advocate if they need it. We are not requiring anything different in their interface with the social security system. Through the single gateway we are developing support, based on an interview with heavily trained staff. They will have undertaken seven weeks of training, including input from mental health groups. That opportunity will allow us to discuss with the claimants their opportunities for returning to work if they are well, fit and able. Only 11 per cent of those with mental health problems are in the labour market, but when I met representatives of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship I discovered that such people were desperate to return to work and that their chief obstacle was not their own inability to enter the labour market, but overcoming the stereotype in employers' minds.

Disabled people who have a mental health problem already have to interact with the social security system. We are giving them the advantage of the support offered by the single gateway. Even if it does not necessarily take them into work—although many of them desperately want to work—it will give them information about benefits and contact groups.

If a claimant is in poor health at the time proposed for interview, it can be deferred or waived altogether if appropriate. Some of the situations that we have heard about could well come into that category. It would not be appropriate for the small number of people who are acutely ill to come in for an interview, but that does not mean that the opportunities of the single gateway should be denied to the much larger span of people who may be suffering phobias, stress or depression. With the help of drug therapy, support, mentoring, buddying and the backing of the disability rights procedures, many of those people would like to re-enter work. If we accepted the amendments, those people would never get the opportunity to explore what they can do and what support mechanisms might be available for them.

The amendments would exclude from the initial work-focused interview people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill or who in the previous three months have been in-patients at a mental illness hospital. It is wrong to approach the issue stereotypically and to exclude large numbers of people from the interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that one in four of the adult population had suffered from a mental health problem at some time. I have checked the statistics. In 1978, 9 per cent of people on incapacity benefit claimed it because of a mental health or behavioural problem. Ten years later that had nearly doubled to about 16 per cent. The figure is now nearly 30 per cent. Should those people, who have had a job in the past, be denied the opportunity that we are offering?

The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said that the system could be voluntary, but that would put us in the same loop that we found with the New Deal. If people do not know what they are going to get from the interview, they do not come. One of the difficulties is to ensure that people have the full knowledge and information that they need. The interview can be deferred if it is inappropriate at that point, or it can be waived. Advocates or carers can also be present, or the interview can be held at home if that is helpful. We do not want to exclude 30 per cent of IB claimants from the reach of the single gateway, because it is in their best interests at least to have the opportunity to come within the system. The amendments are not appropriate because the range of people affected is very broad.

Staff will receive appropriate training and skills, with the help of groups such as MIND, Mencap and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It is right to approach the issue flexibly, supportively and decently by bringing those who already claim from the system to a sensitive and well handled interview. After that we can ensure that they have the necessary support, opportunities and information. They and their carers cannot know until they have been through the interview.

I have given assurances about what the interviews are intended to do. People with a mental health problem already have to engage with the social security system, but without the benefit of face-to-face support. The interviews can be deferred, or even waived, and they can be conducted in the presence of an advocate or in the person's home. The staff will be trained and skilled. Their approach will be sensitive and they will work with voluntary groups. We shall learn from the pilots whether we need to make our procedures more helpful and supportive. With those assurances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not press his amendment.

5.45 p.m.

The Earl of Listowel

Before my noble friend sits down, may I check something with her? Is she talking about in-patients alone or out-patients as well?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I was trying to suggest that many people who have been mental health in-patients may have gone to the hospital voluntarily with a relatively mild illness because they do not have support from their families or because their condition has made it impossible for their families to support them. Others with more severe mental health illnesses are able to lead rich lives in the community in half-way houses supported by other carers. The test of whether someone is an in-patient or under the support of some other mental health organisation is not an appropriate benchmark by which to judge whether someone should come within the single gateway.

Lord Addington

I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. I am surprised by the amount of agreement in principle. The Minister agreed that there was a problem but said that the amendments were far too broad-brush. A reference to severe or acute mental illness in the amendments might have been more appropriate. When it comes to drafting, if I ever get anything right it is more by luck than by judgment. I accept that there is a problem.

The group whom we are talking about is different because the idea of the interview may be the primary problem. I have already said that it is not the idea of the interview that most of us are worrying about.

How many of us have heard examples of regulations being made; for example, in education, and the staff being inappropriately trained because it would take such a long time to get round to dealing with those who were already in place? That approach raises a frightening number of questions.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord on that point. There are 200 advisers in the field who have gone through an average of 200 hours of training—and in some cases 300 or 400 hours—working towards established qualifications such as NVQ3. No one will be working as a personal adviser without being fully and properly trained. We are making a huge investment of staff.

Lord Addington

I thank the Minister for that, but the problem will be getting the right member of staff with the right training to the right person at the right time. Anyone who deals with specialist support services knows that. Demographic trends may cause problems. We have all had experience of that.

As I said, I appreciate that these amendments are rather widely drawn. I do not feel that the subject has been exhausted and we must look at it again, particularly in the light of what the Minister said. Much of that was helpful as regards the principle. Therefore, I shall now withdraw the amendment and return to the issue, having considered what has been said in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]

Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 95:

Page 59, line 16, after ("benefit") insert (", save where a person is severely disabled")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 114. Amendment No. 95 deals with the effect of removing the requirement for a work-focused interview from severely disabled claimants who need to access social security benefits. Amendment No. 114 deals with the need for advocacy support.

Many of the arguments written down in front of me have already been rehearsed during our discussions on the previous amendment. However, once more, I should like to amend, as it were, thoughts about different incapacities. Mental illness and learning disability are not the same conditions. It was unfortunate that the expression "educationally sub-normal" was used in your Lordships' House. Regrettably, that categorises people with learning disabilities back to the bad old days.

There must be a way in which to remove the requirement for interview from the benefit claiming process for the most profoundly and multiply disabled people. Incapacity and disability benefits often provide those claimants with their sole source of income. We cannot run the risk of that income being jeopardised if the claimant cannot legitimately attend an interview on grounds of severe unchanging disability.

The Secretary of State and the noble Baroness have both told me of their reluctance to exempt categories of people. I acknowledge that there are people with higher rates of disability living allowance who are indeed working. But case-by-case discretion exercised by a junior officer seems to be an unsatisfactory and unreliable way in which to address the reality that people so severely disabled should not face a compulsory work-focused interview in order to obtain benefits.

I am aware that it is not in the interest of anybody—neither the claimant nor the Government—to place unrealistic requirements upon severely disabled people or personal advisers, who are predominantly there to signpost work-ready clients into the labour market. But I shall be sufficiently reassured, as I am sure will other Members of the Committee, if the Minister will give a commitment to issue guidance on advancing the claims of those permanently unfit to attend an interview. That guidance should be developed in consultation with relevant specialists. If I am given such a commitment, I suspect that I shall not press the amendment.

I turn now to Amendment No. 114 which refers to advocacy support. To interview or not to interview will rarely be a straightforward choice, particularly when determining the value of conducting "one" interviews with clients with moderate learning disabilities. For although an interview may be theoretically possible for some, it is likely to be counterproductive unless appropriate support is provided.

Many people require support in order to express their own views, and that will undoubtedly be the case within the context of "one" interviews. Without such support, clients with a learning disability may not fully comprehend the process, what is being required of them and what choices they are entitled to make. Some people with learning disabilities may have difficulty taking in new information, handling complex material such as benefit claim forms and communicating effectively. They may need support to help them with what they want to say. They may need encouragement to answer a question. They may also derive considerable emotional support from the presence of an advocate who is in an independent position.

A skilled advocate can support all those functions and, through facilitation, ensure that an interview is constructive for the claimant and for the personal adviser. If the "one" scheme is really about providing a service to claimants, there is no reason why claimants should be denied the right to advocacy support and provision made, where necessary, for appropriate support. I presume that that advocacy would stretch long beyond the realms of learning disability.

Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all claimants will have a statutory entitlement to advocacy support, which will be made available without cost to the claimant if the absence of such support makes a work-focused interview untenable.

A simple way to achieve that would be by advising claimants of their rights to advocacy support on their letter inviting them to a work-focused interview, setting out a structure for the reimbursement of costs. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Disabled people face many barriers to education, training and employment. In principle, personal advisers could bring a much-needed individual approach, provided that the adviser has the appropriate training, qualifications and resources. As I have already stated in connection with the previous amendments, making the personal adviser interview compulsory and linking it with the claims process risks undermining any value which the interview could have for claimants and may also worsen their health.

Clause 52 requires all claimants to participate in a work-focused interview as a condition of receipt of benefit. The Disability Benefits Consortium and ourselves believe that the term "work-focused" is misleading and does not reflect the full objectives of the interview or the range of support which should be offered to claimants.

Much has been said on previous amendments about raising fear in people's minds. In practice, much of that fear stems from the terminology used in the Bill. The description "work-focused interviews" is raising alarm among many people who are terrified of the prospect that if they cannot come up to speed in an interview which is aimed at work, they will somehow be penalised and their benefits diminished. Therefore, I suggest that consideration should perhaps be given to the words "work-focused".

The severity of the condition of claimants with severe disabilities will rule out paid employment. Those are not, by definition, people who are unemployed and available for work but people who are incapable of work and have been so for at least six months. Disabled people who can work may require welfare, either in support of independent living or to top up low earnings. But tying the interview into an incapacity benefit claim means that people are being required to discuss work prospects—that is a problem—before their capacity for work and, hence, eligibility for benefit has been assessed; at a point when they are seeking help precisely because they are not well enough to work and when they may be very ill and distressed; and at a time determined by when they make the claim rather than when they may be able to make best use of job advice.

If the amendment is not accepted, we believe that the following consequences can be expected. Claimants will feel undermined, harassed and burdened by the requirement and will be likely to perceive the interview as a hurdle in the benefit claim rather than a genuine offer of help, with any existing anxiety or depression exacerbated. In addition, in particular, claimants with an invisible impairment, such as mental health problems, chronic fatigue or pain, will feel under extra pressure because of their disability, which will not be obvious to the adviser. They will be faced with having to justify and explain their incapacity one more time.

We believe that claimants may he steered into ill-advised courses of action if the emphasis is on work regardless of its consequences for health, or if they think that the advice they are given has to be followed. Further, some people will not be able to cope with attending for an interview; for example, because of their mental state and the anxieties generated by the process of claiming benefits. In that case, their claim will not go forward unless there is support to enable them to take part, to show that they are exempt or have good cause not to take part. We believe also that the interviews could become a formality, especially if advisers are seeing the majority of claimants, not just those who can make best use of the interview. Therefore, we question the value of interviews.

I turn to Amendment No. 114, which concerns advocacy support for a claimant during the interview process. We recognise, as does the Disability Benefits Consortium, that interviews will be unworkable for some claimants with intellectual and sensory impairments or claimants with mental health problems unless they are permitted to be accompanied by an appropriate advocate. I think I am right in saying that the Minister made reference in her opening statement to the ability of claimants to take with them an advocate, and I appreciate that.

We believe that there should be a statutory provision for all claimants to have a right to advocacy support. The Disability Benefits Consortium supports us on this point, further suggesting that it would welcome a commitment that interview-related expenses incurred by advocates would be met by the agency. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to that. However, in that regard, one might question the level of advocacy, and the level of expenses, which could be added to the support of this initiative. We therefore support both the amendments.

6 p.m.

Lord Addington

We, on these Benches, support the thrust of the amendments. I strongly agree that to call in for interview a person with a long-term unchanging disability, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, may ultimately be a waste of time.

That applies especially if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the interviews are work focused. I believe that the terminology here has led to a great deal of worry. I suspect that the number of amendments to this clause might have been halved if that term had been changed. Many people who have tremendous difficulties in work have been extremely worried by the emphasis on everything being work related.

The noble Baroness mentioned advocacy support during the interviews. Further enlightenment on that point would be helpful. Such support is essential if the interviews are to he of any use. I believe an amendment has been tabled concerning the deaf-blind. Such people have all normal means of communication denied to them. Without advocacy support, they will be totally and utterly helpless in such situations. If information cannot be extracted from them or given to them, the Bill will be irrelevant and meaningless to them. I ant sure that the noble Baroness will say that such people are already covered, but it will not hurt to have it said again. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Rix, does not intend to move the amendments, I suggest that an answer now would be helpful to us at later stages of the Bill.

Lord Davies of Coity

I am in some difficulty as regards the description of "severely disabled" in the same way as I was with the previous amendment and the description of "mental difficulties". It seems to me that the term "severely disabled" covers a range, unless there is just one category, of which I am not aware. Of course, if a person is severely disabled and bedridden, obviously he or she would not be able to attend for interview. Someone else would, quite rightly, claim the benefit on his or her behalf.

I would say that someone is severely disabled if he or she is in a wheelchair. However, the opportunity for such people to undergo an interview, with an opportunity to work, which they may want, is available to them. I am sure that all noble Lords will be able to think of many situations in which people who are described as "severely disabled" are still able to fulfil some employment function, which they would want to do. At the end of the day, it will be voluntary and their choice. The whole exercise here is providing choices, opportunities and information to enable people to exercise the right and entitlement that we think is theirs.

Therefore, I would have some difficulty in supporting an amendment which refers to "severely disabled" but which does not define the people about whom we are talking.

Lord Addington

Perhaps I may briefly follow up that point. I am afraid that the answer has to be either regulations or a much longer Bill to try to achieve more definition, as I am sure everybody involved in this field will know.

Lord Milverton

I hope that the Minister is able to respond positively to the two amendments. They put forward an important point of principle. I am sure that there are cases in which severely disabled people would need somebody to assist them when it comes to an interview.

Lord Rix

Perhaps I may be permitted to interrupt briefly. I expressed the view that I would be more than satisfied if the Minister were able to give an assurance that guidance on both the interview and advocacy were spelt out very clearly. I would consider that to be adequate at present.

I agree that there is a difficulty in describing a severe disability, particularly one which would render an interview useless. I hate to quote again the case of my daughter, which I have done previously, but she is one of probably a quarter of a million people with a very severe learning disability who would not benefit in any shape or form from an interview. She would not know what the interview was about. She would not recognise the interviewer. She would probably use incoherent or offensive language, if she responded at all. She might well be stark naked in bed and unable to be moved out of her room when the interview takes place. She might change her clothes eight, 10, or 14 times a day. She might well be enjoying herself getting through in a wheelchair to a specially-constructed seat.

However, I think we could safely say that she, and probably another quarter of a million sons and daughters like her, are quite incapable of attending an interview or being interviewed. I cannot believe that it is not beyond the wit of the Government to issue guidance in this direction.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I rise briefly to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on Amendment No. 95. I could not possibly hope to expand upon his speeches tonight. I should also like to register my support for Amendment No. 114 with regard to advocacy support. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, when he comes to reply after the Minister has replied to the Committee.

The Minister referred to the fact that she anticipates that it will continue to be a right of people at the gateway interview to take along an advocate who is able to assist them on their behalf. I welcome her commitment tonight. I also note that in another place the Minister, Andrew Smith, gave the assurance that people who need help will be able to take someone with them, whether that person be a friend, a parent or an advocate in whatever sense.

He went on to argue that it was not necessary for the right to advocacy to be put on the face of the Bill, simply because in a sense one could replicate the procedure at present.

I am advised by MIND and MACA that unless the right to advocacy is enshrined in the Bill there could be occasions when individuals are not aware of the possibility of taking someone with them to an interview. They are concerned that the staff might not make that known to them or might refuse permission for an advocate to be present. Perhaps this is a matter on which the Minister could give further assurances tonight which would satisfy the Committee.

My mind was opened further than usual this morning when I was fortunate enough to attend a parliamentarians' seminar on deaf awareness training. That made me far more aware than I had been—I regret that I had not been aware before—of how important it is for advocates to appear on behalf of a wide group of people with hearing problems.

I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I thought that I would be able to support him entirely—as is my habit. However, I was concerned by his remarks at the very end of his speech when he referred to some form of advocacy support system. I had anticipated that his amendment would amount to a nil cost to the Treasury and that one could take along a McKenzie friend to act on one's behalf without there being any green-form scheme or payment from the Treasury. I hope that is what the noble Lord means. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I thought he suggested that the Government should provide a group of people, who would be paid for by the DSS or some other government organisation, to play an advocacy role. I hope that I am wrong about that.

Lord Rix

At the end of my brief speech about advocacy, I expressed the hope that the Minister would take this opportunity to assure the Committee that all claimants will have a statutory entitlement to advocacy support, which will be made available without cost to the claimant if the absence of such support makes a work-focused interview untenable. I am afraid that we are at opposite ends of the argument.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for teasing that response out of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I had similar concerns about his comments.

In his second or third intervention, the noble Lord asked me to assure the Committee, first, about guidance and, secondly, about advocacy. He asked me to confirm that there will be a statutory entitlement—that is, a right—to advocacy. The answer to the noble Lord's questions is: yes and yes. I could now sit down—which would speed up the proceedings—but it may be appropriate to enlarge upon this point.

I believe that I must emphasise, as my noble friends have done, the fact that we recognise that people who are severely disabled and who want or need representation must and will be treated with particular sensitivity. However, we must treat people as individuals, not as categories. It is relatively arbitrary whether people receive DLA, SDA or IB. We do not want to suggest that people are treated according to the category in which they are placed. We believe that under the "one" service and face-to-face contact, we will have the opportunity to identify the areas where extra support is needed.

People may say that that is a waste of time. I was told only a few days ago of a case involving a man living off his redundancy payment who brought into the office his wife, who is severely incapacitated by virtue of a stroke and who is receiving DLA. He was told about—and will now take up—invalid care allowance, his wife will receive SDA and they may be entitled to HB, which may mean a worthwhile increase in their income of £100 per week. That man need not have come into the office. People will be able to seek help under the "one" service in future and we will ensure that a full range of support and assistance is made available in difficult situations.

It is appropriate to consider whether the interview should take place at the time of claiming or be deferred to a later date. As I have said, personal advisers will have the discretion to waive the interview altogether if that is what the individual circumstances dictate. Guidance will be made available to personal advisers, in association with professional voluntary organisations, to ensure that they are aware of the circumstances in which an interview should be waived. That guidance will include references to those who are so severely disabled that work is never likely to be a realistic prospect. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's first point.

I repeat: it is not a question of harassing vulnerable people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested. It is a question of ensuring that people are aware of the support that is available. I wish to make a wider point, on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will support me. We should not make an easy reading across from the severity of disability to the capacity for work. It is too easy to assume that the most severely disabled are the least likely to work and that those with the least disability are the most likely to work. All of our research and evidence compiled over the past few years confounds that myth. I know of people who are paralysed from the neck down and who, none the less, run businesses. We know of people who have been blind from birth, who have been recruited by major companies because of their affinity with technology and who are holding down senior jobs. We know of people in your Lordships' House and in the Government who have severe disabilities and who, by any definition, would qualify as severely disabled. Yet they are participating fully in your Lordships' debates and one is a serving Cabinet Minister in Her Majesty's Government.

I know of someone in receipt of SDA who has ME. She keeps in touch with the labour market in the hope that her ME will burn out or be corrected and she will be able to re-enter the job market. She wants to ensure that she keeps her options open. On good days, she wants to be able to read appropriate material, come into the office, talk to people, make contacts and so on. Let us not assume that somehow a severe disability equals incapacity for work. We know from experience that mild to moderate degrees of mental illness and mental health problems may be more incapacitating than some extremely severe physical health problems.

Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not attach too much weight to the words "severely disabled". Some of the most severely disabled people I know are most urgent in their desire to return to work. Quadriplegics, the blind and the deaf seek to work, and are working. Yet those people are automatically put onto incapacity benefit without needing to do the all-work test. Such people are holding down jobs, and many like them wish to return to the labour market. That is why we must ensure that we do not write off people, irrespective of their potential, by virtue of some label.

We must also ensure that people receive the help they need in a positive way. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of Amendment No. 114, which seeks to ensure that people who attend work-focused interviews may be accompanied by an advocate when they believe that is appropriate. I am happy to assure noble Lords that a person may be accompanied by a third party. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested, we do not think that it is necessary to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill. If your Lordships believe that there is a serious issue as to whether people know about their right to have an advocate, I shall consider whether that should be mentioned in the original letter or whatever. That may be a more appropriate way of handling the matter.

We want to ensure that people know about their right to advocacy. We are considering whether we should examine the cost of fares and so on when an advocate is necessary for someone who has learning difficulties, for example. There is a similar question when an interpreter is needed and staff cannot provide the necessary translation service. In those circumstances, we will arrange for those services to be provided.

To return to where I began: I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the assurances that he seeks. Yes, there will be guidance to staff and, yes, there will be a right to advocacy. We will reflect on how best we can ensure that those rights are made known. Behind that lies our insistence that we are seeking to ensure that everyone receives the help and support that they need. For some, that support may be work focused and for others it may be benefit focused or more general support, such as putting people in contact with relevant organisations. Please let us not write off people according to the nature or the degree of severity of their disability. The experience of your Lordships—any of whom have a long history of working with disabled people—is that that is not the right and appropriate way forward. Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

Before the Minister sits down, I stress that there is no question of us on these Benches suggesting that we write off anyone. I agree entirely that many people with severe disabilities want to work.

Does the Minister agree that the terminology "work focused" is one of the reasons why many of us are being inundated with letters from numerous organisations and individuals expressing considerable fear and anxiety about this clause? Perhaps I may suggest the use of the term "personal development interviews" or similar wording. It may seem to be a small, insignificant point, but it would be enormously valuable and beneficial to many thousands of people. We must get the wording right so that people do not feel that they must attend an interview and somehow show that they are capable of working when many of them, sadly, are not.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Those reasons were well expressed by the noble Baroness. That is why we now refer to the scheme as "one"; that is, that it suggests an integration of services.

The vast majority of people coming through will be those on jobseeker's allowance, lone parents, or other groups who have been on income support who may be able to work. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the focus should be on work. Where we are dealing with issues of disability, it may be more appropriate to focus on benefits and the like.

I repeat again that, following the "one" interview for any disabled person, their benefit, if they are on incapacity benefit, is protected irrespective of what that interview in terms of a subsequent personal capability assessment may throw up. They do not have to follow any course of action following that interview. On the contrary, they may choose not to take part beyond attending that interview.

From my experience, the problem arises on the other side. People want help; they want face-to-face interviews; they want to go back into work. The complaints I received in the past as a Minister with some responsibility for disability issues were that we have so far not met a need and are beginning to do so. The problem is not pushing people into work who do not want it; it is helping those who want to work to get into work where they can, and giving people the information, opportunities and knowledge that they currently do not have where work is not the appropriate option for them. Disabled people asked us to provide that service and that is what we will be doing.

Earl Russell

Perhaps I can assist the Minister. We should not get hung up on arguments about whether people want one thing or another. There are all sorts of people. I understand the Minister's argument about the giving of opportunity. That is not at issue. But many people are afraid of the loss of benefits. If the Minister could consider the possibility of distinguishing between attending the interview and the penalty for not doing so, she might find that there is a way forward on a number of these amendments.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

We went through that in detail a while ago. Anyone receiving a benefit must make a claim for that benefit. In future, that benefit will be embedded in an interview; full stop. It does not mean that, following that interview, those who have a disability will have to do anything further. However, the interview is part of the process of obtaining that benefit.

Lord Rix

I am delighted with the assurances given by the Minister in regard to severely disabled people and how they will be affected by guidelines to be issued, also for those who will seek to have advocates present. I am delighted that detailed guidelines will be offered on both subjects. With that in mind I have the greatest pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 59, line 16, after ("benefit") insert (", save where a person has caring commitments of thirty five hours per week or more")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 96 concerns caring commitments. The Government are clearly interested in getting carers into paid employment as soon as it becomes feasible once their caring commitments have come to an end. The work-focused interview—perhaps it should be called the "work-focused, benefits-focused interview"—is designed to get individuals thinking about their skills, training requirements and employment aspirations in advance so that they are in a strong position to find work when their circumstances change. That is a sensible strategy for the economy, and indeed for some carers who find that welfare ends abruptly when their caring responsibilities come to an end.

But the Government also hope to encourage some carers to consider the option of part-time work concomitant with their caring responsibilities. Again, that is not inconceivable for some carers who may find scope for work during periods when the disabled child or adult is away from home, at school, college or a day centre. Combining employment and caring responsibilities should make carers at least marginally better off, even though typically carers work in low-skilled, low-paid positions just to make ends meet.

However, caution must be exercised to ensure that it is not taken for granted that carers can plug a perceived gap in their daily routine with paid employment. Invalid care allowance recipients are, by definition, working 35 hours a week or more. To what other group doing socially useful work would any government dare to say, "Since you are only working 35 hours per week, you should be doing another job as well"? My primary concern is for carers who will never be able to combine caring and work and are likely to spend their lifetime as carers, most notably lifelong, full-time carers of people with severe disabilities. Their contribution to society cannot be underestimated. They already do a full-time job. They save the Treasury millions of pounds in care costs and deserve, as I am sure Members of the Committee recognise, unquestioning support.

At Second Reading I offered the illustration of the difficulties that a work-focused interview might present to a full-time carer, so I need not go over old ground. None the less, it is important to emphasise that some carers will start off and continue to be full-time carers over a lifetime. A person who gives birth in their twenties to a child with profound physical and intellectual disabilities may have 40 years of full-time caring ahead. A work-focused interview is not likely to be appropriate or convenient, either now or in the future, for people in those circumstances.

Amendment No. 104 is consequential on Amendment No. 96. Invalid care allowance recipients, by definition, have caring responsibilities of 35 hours per week or more, as I said, and therefore should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill which prescribe that full entitlement to benefit should be conditional on participation in work-focused interviews. I am not advocating a passive welfare state. I do not believe that faceless bureaucracies benefit carers any more than any other client group. By all means provide full-time carers with the opportunity to have a discussion with a personal adviser to chat about benefits and so forth, but do not coerce them into doing so with the sting of benefit withdrawals or reduction. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

Very briefly, the tone of the noble Lord's speech is one to which I hope the Minister can respond favourably. An interview to see how the state system can help a person to enhance their lives is something which people will happily attend. But the idea of withdrawal of benefits is something that will probably sting these people very hard.

Baroness Pitkeathley

I have some sympathy with these amendments. If I had the temerity to correct the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I would say that carers save the Treasury billions, not millions of pounds. I also have sympathy with his view that not all carers wish to work or can possibly be expected to work.

However, it is important to understand that for many carers the offer of an interview, especially an appointment with a personal adviser, could be of benefit, particularly as carers constantly say that nobody recognises their position or takes any notice of their difficulties. But that will depend entirely on how the interview is conducted and on the skills and training of the personal adviser—a course we have already been round several times this afternoon.

First, there is the issue of how the carer can get away to the interview if it is to be conducted somewhere other than home; and if it is to be conducted at home, how will it be conducted in private and in a confidential manner? While the mass of strategy for carers has put extra work and money into respite care for carers, there is no doubt that many carers still suffer the difficulties of having no break from their caring. Even when arrangements have been made for a carer to attend an interview, the unexpected always happens.

As a carers' national association we are committed to enabling carers to speak up for themselves in meetings with Ministers, at conferences, with the media and so forth, but we always know that we have to have not one carer scheduled to do that, but at least two because the unexpected will happen and the carer will not be able to fulfil the commitment even when all the arrangements have been made, perhaps because of an unexpected worsening of the condition of the person for whom they are caring, or a simple refusal to accept the substitute care. I look forward to having the Minister's assurances that the personal advisers will he trained specifically in these particular issues to help people not only as regards work-focused arrangements but also to help them to gain access to other sources of information and other services.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Rix

Perhaps I may underline a statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I once went to Manchester to see our people in what was then our PRMH, now PIMD (profound intellectual multiple disability project), which is a Mencap project. It was taking place in Piper Hill School, Manchester. There was an exhibition of work for profoundly multiply disabled young people and middle-aged people.

Therefore, I totally support the idea that meaningful support from an interview for mothers, fathers or carers generally may be of the greatest possible use. At that function, I was horrified to see a man of 34 in a wheelchair with a profound multiple-intellectual impairment whose mother told me that she had never received full benefits until she came to our project in Manchester after 34 years. Up to then, the best she had ever achieved were nappies for his incontinence.

Baroness Buscombe

I support this amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has just said amplifies the need for it. It has the effect of removing compulsion from the work-focused interview for carers. That means that for these groups the receipt of benefit will not be conditional on participation in a work-focused interview. It is important to stress that this amendment does not exclude people in this category from the interview process, thereby ensuring that in principle an interview is available for any claimant who might think they would benefit from it.

The amendment protects the income of the most overworked carers, if I may put it so strongly, looking after children or disabled or elderly adults. We in the Disability Benefits Consortium lend full support to Amendments Nos. 96 and 104. If implemented properly, personal adviser interviews could provide benefit claimants with much needed information and assistance. For that reason, we would not want to see anyone denied an interview if they believe it appropriate.

However, there are some people with caring responsibilities for whom an interview is simply inappropriate given their personal circumstances and their existing caring commitments. It is also important that benefit income should not be put at risk for people in this group because they have particular problems in attending interviews, for example, at times specified by the Benefits Agency.

For some carers, day and night care-work and little sleep leave no possibility of paid employment or, may I suggest, even socialising. Research by Mencap reveals that over 40 per cent of carers of people with learning disabilities have not had an evening out in the past six months. Some carers normally get fewer than three hours sleep a night; others are having to cope with a norm of six hours of washing clothes and bed linen in addition to attending to personal care. Therefore, I believe that it is unrealistic and insensitive to penalise. carers by reducing or taking away what is often their only source of income because their commitment to care-work makes it impossible to honour an interview commitment with the Benefits Agency.

The Government's affirmation of the work of carers in the recently announced National Carers Strategy could well be undermined if carers are required to justify their role in the Government's drive towards getting people off benefit and into paid employment.

Compulsory work-focused interviews for carers are inconsistent with the Prime Minister's view that carers are, the unsung heroes of British life". In his foreword to the National Carers Strategy the Prime Minister claimed that: What carers do should be properly recognised and properly supported—and the Government should play its part". This amendment also safeguards the benefit of claimants who have responsibility for children below school age. That gives lone parents and families the choice of looking after children without placing a requirement on them to discuss taking up work. The Disability Benefits Consortium is concerned by the statistics of the Benefits Agency which reveal that many children live in families whose single source of income is social security. It is particularly concerned about the position of low-income families caring for disabled children. To sanction benefits on account of non-attendance at an interview, even for a short period, could have a detrimental effect on the child. Indeed, it may well be the case that arranging suitable childcare is problematic, particularly for the parents of disabled children, and that missing an interview is unavoidable. Therefore, we speak in support of these amendments.

Lord Davies of Coity

I believe that each of us will be sympathetic to the arguments that have been advanced in support of this amendment; but I fear that it presents one or two difficulties. The first is that it says, thirty five hours per week or more". Why not 32, 30 or 25 hours per week? In fact, there may be people caring on a shared arrangement and working very much harder and having greater caring responsibilities, but who may not be working 35 hours per week. That presents an anomaly which would create difficulties for people in caring situations.

The second problem is that if we put into the Bill the provision that anyone with caring commitments of 35 hours per week or more—

Lord Rix

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure he is aware that one cannot be in receipt of the invalid care allowance unless by definition one is caring for more than 35 hours per week.

Lord Davies of Coity

I certainly understand that. But I believe that if this amendment is put into the Bill, it could create difficulties. It would discriminate between different carers as regards the interview process.

The second problem is that if the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, presumably someone will say to the benefits office, "I am caring for a person for more than 35 hours a week". Does the matter remain there and is accepted, or are further inquiries made to see whether or not that is correct? It seems to me that the arguments that have been advanced on behalf of carers would come out very clearly and plainly at the interviewing process. They would demonstrate clearly that the person would not be available for employment.

Earl Russell

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said what she did about the effect of this amendment. I understand that its effect would not be to deny an opportunity of an interview to someone who wants it. The amendment deals only with the compulsion. That is the theme to which we keep returning. We on these Benches—by that I refer to my honourable friends as well as my noble friends—have accepted the principle of the interview in the single gateway, subject to a very considerable concern about exceptions for vulnerable people of various sorts.

We do not seem to be having much success as regards the exception for vulnerable people. Perhaps I may stress again that it is not our intention at any stage to exclude them from the opportunity; it is our concern to protect them from compulsion. If that concern is not to be at all satisfied, we shall have to reconsider our attitude to the whole process. I would not wish to predict what the outcome of such consideration might be, as it will involve many people other than myself who have not yet had the opportunity of finding out what has taken place in this debate.

Before we leave this subject, I would like to ask the Minister to do a little more thinking about exceptions and about whether she really wishes to move quite so much in the direction of work conscription. It is beginning to look rather perturbing and the language of opportunity, which we have heard and with which we agree, is beginning to look increasingly disproportionate to what is actually being done.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I shall deal with the noble Earl's remarks in a moment. However, I have to say that his choice of the word "conscription" was both misconceived and inappropriate, especially as I spent a considerable time when responding to the previous amendment explaining that disabled people, lone parents and the like are entirely free, following the interview, to do nothing at all.

As the noble Lord explained, these amendments seek to exempt from the requirement to attend work-focused interviews people claiming invalid care allowance and others providing care for more than 35 hours a week. Perhaps I can explain why the Government think it right to include carers within the "one" service. In no sense is there any challenge to the extraordinary and valuable role performed by carers who, very often, impoverish themselves and break their own health in the very process of caring, as my noble friend has explained to us on many occasions. Indeed, quite the opposite.

As I am sure all Members of the Committee will agree, the six million carers—only some 300,000 of whom are entitled to claim ICA—make a vital contribution to the well-being of this country and, above all, to the well-being of our people. The Prime Minister has already announced the allocation of £750 million over the next three years to promote independence through the prevention of illness and disability through rehabilitation. Carers and those they care for will benefit from this. In addition, we are making £140 million available to allow carers to take well-earned breaks from their caring responsibilities. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the Carers National Association and to the work of my noble friend in achieving that response.

The proposals in this clause will, of course, require those carers making claims to social security benefits, including the main carers' benefit, ICA, to take part in work-focused interviews both at the point of claim and at various points thereafter. All they will be required to do is to take part in an interview, which is designed to be of real assistance to them.

There will be three main purposes for carers. First, as I emphasised previously, the interview will not deal exclusively with work-related issues. The personal adviser will be able to offer a wide range of advice and support that can be valuable to the carer. This will include advice about other benefits to which he or she may be entitled. In addition, the personal adviser may be able to provide information on other organisations which support carers, in areas such as respite care. Such links may be crucial in helping carers avoid the isolation which often follows the onset of their responsibilities.

Secondly, as I am sure Members of the Committee will acknowledge, some carers may be able to do some work despite the fact that they have heavy caring commitments. To receive ICA, someone must have caring commitments of at least 35 hours a week. Even so, around 10 per cent to 15 per cent of those who claim ICA do some work. So caring duties and part-time work are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We want the opportunity to discuss with carers whether they wish to consider part-time work, and, if they do, to give them the full range of help and support that they deserve to allow them to realise that ambition. However, I should like to stress again that we will not be forcing carers to follow this route, or any other.

Thirdly, caring duties do not last for ever. Over one-third of those on ICA care for less than a year. The median length of claim for ICA is two years. Many carers move straight from ICA to jobseeker's allowance with its full range of work-focused conditions. We want to ease that transition by helping carers take what steps they reasonably can to stay in touch with the labour market or improve their employability throughout their period of caring responsibilities. Again, this will be subject to what is feasible, given the extent of their caring commitments.

These are sensible proposals and ones which we hope many carers will welcome. However, for many people who have spoken today, the argument seems to hinge on the issue of compulsion. Members of the Committee have again suggested that the "one" service should be on an entirely voluntary basis for carers, as with others. I can understand why the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have made that suggestion, but I am afraid that I simply do not agree with them philosophically.

As I said on Second Reading—and I hoped then that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, actually agreed with me—a key issue here is that you do not know what you do not know. If the noble Earl really believes that the interview can be valuable and helpful, I should point out to him that very often the people who will be in need of that help will be precisely those who will not learn of that help if the interview is voluntary. Therefore, they will not be available to take advantage of such assistance. The whole point about making the interview compulsory is that it is a way of actually empowering people to go on to make subsequent choices. If they do not have that first exposure to appropriate information, support and help, they will not be able to go on and make other choices, which may be more satisfying to them in their lives. That is the reason for it.

If, following the interview, we were saying to carers that they must work even though they are caring for 35 hours a week and even though they are disabled and receiving incapacity benefit, I could take the noble Earl's point. However, people do not know what they do not know. Unless we empower them through the compulsory interview, they will not have that information and will not be able to make such choices. People cannot choose if they do not know about the choices available.

Earl Russell

I hear what the Minister says. If she will not give up the compulsion, will she consider a reduced penalty for those in vulnerable situations?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

If someone is claiming benefit for the first time, the interview is part of that benefit claim unless it is deferred or waived in certain situations following guidance. If that person has had a repeat interview and failed to attend—for example, a trigger interview where the child is five or 11—obviously we are talking about sanctions of 20 per cent to 40 per cent. But people are coming into the system at the point at which they claim benefit. We are embedding that benefit claim in an interview. Indeed, many noble Lords will be quite surprised to learn that people can get benefit without actually having an interview.

I really do not understand why the noble Earl is so resistant to the notion of a compulsory interview when he values the interview. Indeed, those it would most help would be those least likely to take advantage of such assistance were the interview not to be compulsory.

Earl Russell

Has the Minister ever known any bureaucratic power which was infallibly exercised?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

No. As I tried to explain earlier, that is precisely why anyone seeking to come for an interview would have three repeated contacts through letters or telephone calls. No one would lose benefit in this situation unless he had been personally contacted and was fully aware of the implications of his action. No benefit would be cut off by administrative error because no benefit would he cut off without personal contact having been made, based on home visits or the like. Although I cannot guarantee it, we have put in as much "belt and braces" as is conceivable or feasible under the present system.

Perhaps I may turn from the point about what people do not know and move on to deal with some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. The requirement to attend an interview is not an onerous one; indeed, we are talking about an interview which may last, say, an hour in the course of about a year. Those interviews will be arranged at times which fit in with a claimant's caring responsibilities. It can take place in the carer's home if that is appropriate. However, where it is not appropriate to expect someone to have a discussion with a personal adviser because, for example, the person being cared for is seriously ill, the interview can be deferred. My noble friend also asked about the training of staff. I can tell her that the Carers National Association is involved in the training of staff.

We are approaching the concept of the interview based on the "one" programme as an opportunity for people. We want them to learn about their entitlement to benefits; we want them to learn about support; and we want those carers who have come out of the labour market, and who may very quickly go back into it, to stay in contact with the labour market. However, we know that those who have had the least education, those who are most isolated and who have the most severe disabilities are those who have the least knowledge about their entitlements.

If we rely on people coming forward voluntarily, we know that those who are already well educated and sharp are able to come forward and that those who most need help do not. That is why we are embedding the benefit claim in the interview. But following that, once people are informed and can make informed choices, the choice is theirs. They have the freedom and the right to make that choice. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Lord Rix

Can the Minister assure me that the department will issue guidance on the service provided to full-time carers through the "one" process, and that guidance of a most detailed kind—as she said on the previous amendment—will be available for the offices taking part?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Guidance will be sent to personal advisers on how best to respond to all these situations—those of carers, severely disabled people and the like.

Lord Rix

Does that include guidance on home visits as an alternative to having to go to an office?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Yes, of course.

Lord Rix

With that assurance, and with the slight proviso that I feel I must consult again with the Disability Benefits Consortium, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 59, line 21, at end insert (";and such regulations shall not have effect unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

The noble Earl said: The purpose of Amendment No. 97 is to use the affirmative procedure for regulations under Clause 52. It embodies a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee states in paragraph 11 of its report, These are important new powers, and the Committee considers that wherever the Government's intention for the use of these powers is already certain, for example not requiring retired people to attend work-focused interviews, then this should be stated on the face of the Bill and not left to regulation. We also consider that the first instance of the use of these powers should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".

All governments have a good record on accepting the reports of that committee. The committee is a valuable servant of this Chamber. Indeed it has been suggested by people of some importance that what it does is so important it might well be imitated elsewhere. That is not for me to say, but it shows that its work is recognised and respected well beyond the confines of this Chamber. The fact that the committee has made this recommendation is itself a serious reason for this amendment.

Anyone who has heard this debate will, I think, understand that there are reasons for use of the affirmative procedure. We have found a good deal of uncertainty about the extent of the powers. We have found a good deal of room for dispute about the details of how the powers shall be exercised and a good deal of concern about the nature or extent of penalties. All these are matters which should properly be the concern of the Chamber. I admit that one must be wary about not applying the affirmative procedure to too many issues. We need to keep the affirmative procedure for occasions when there is likely to be a considerable body of people in the Chamber wanting to discuss the issue because it is of general concern and because the issues which it raises are extremely various. I think this debate has proved that that criterion is here wholly satisfied. Therefore the case for the affirmative procedure under the regulations under Clause 52 is a strong one.

We are having a new condition of benefit. How much change that will mean is a point which I think remains open to discovery. The discovery will in part come from seeing those regulations. It will concern everyone. If we are to tease out exactly what the meaning is, we need the issue brought forward in open Chamber where we can all have a look at it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I was hoping that the noble Earl would feel able to withdraw this amendment because he has had a copy of the letter to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepting its proposals. I can give a full answer if he likes but, given that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee asked that the first set of regulations should be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, we have written to the committee saying that we are happy to agree to that. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has received a copy of that letter, as has the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I wonder whether, in the light of that, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Buscombe

Before the Minister sits down, would she in those circumstances be prepared to publish the draft regulations to which this Bill refers prior to the Report stage?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I shall have to take advice on that but I would hope so.

Earl Russell

I think that I owe the Minister an apology. I think the Minister knows that the Chamber sat late last night. One o'clock in the morning is not the best time to start opening post; it does not make one particularly popular at home. I hope that under those circumstances the Minister will forgive me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 59, line 21, at end insert— ("(1A) A work-focused interview for a person receiving or applying for or having applied for incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, or disability premia in income support shall only take place once the personal capability assessment provided for in section 171C of the Contributions and Benefits Act has been made.")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, we ask simply for clarification as to the processes for assessing a claimant's ability to work or not, and the work-focused interview. In another place it was said that the two processes—the personal capability assessment and the work-focused interview—are separate but related. But how are they related? We believe that the personal capability assessment should be a prerequisite for a proper work-focused interview. I suggest that it would not make sense to have a work-focused interview before the capability assessment has been made. To have a capability assessment after a work-focused interview would be illogical and possibly an expensive waste of money. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

This amendment seeks to stipulate on the face of the Bill that claimants of incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support with a disability premium will all have their initial "one" interview deferred until after they have had a personal capability assessment (PCA).

I know that the relationship between the "one" service and the personal capability assessment was discussed at length in another place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has raised some of the same issues today. But, although I can appreciate the intentions behind the amendment, I do not believe that it would be right to accept it.

As the Committee knows, Clause 56 of the Bill replaces the current all-work test with the personal capability assessment. The all-work test determines whether people are incapable of work for the purposes of entitlement to incapacity benefits. The PCA will still do this, and the criteria for entitlement to benefit will remain the same. However, we want to add value to the assessment process, by using it to collect additional information about people's work-related capabilities.

The "one" service aims to help people from the outset of their claim, changing the culture of the benefit system. The earlier support is given, the more likely people are to focus on planning a route to a fuller life, and the less likely they are to be left stranded on benefit, often against their wishes. That is why we feel it is important for as many people as possible to have an interview immediately at the point of claim.

However, as I say, for most people, taking part in an interview is not an onerous requirement—we are not requiring anyone to do anything unreasonable. The interview is not a test of eligibility for benefit. The PCA is a medical test which achieves that. The "one" interviews, on the other hand, will offer practical and welfare-related support, and a chance to talk about whether any work or training would be appropriate. They give us a chance to show what help we can offer. For these reasons, I do not believe that it would be right to automatically defer the initial "one" interview until after the PCA. This would also run counter to the aim of the "one" service to treat people as individuals. it is important to bear in mind the range of disabilities, circumstances and barriers to work that affect claimants of incapacity benefits. In addition, the nature, stage and progress of their condition may be quite different. For example, some people come onto incapacity benefit after spending up to six months on statutory sick pay, and some come straight on to IB at the start of their illness or disability. Many people may, therefore, benefit from an interview at the outset of their claim.

Of course, as I have said several times—I must be boring the Committee—we recognise that for some people an immediate interview would not be appropriate. For example, it would not be appropriate for us to interview immediately someone in the early stages of recovering from a major operation. However, the decision to defer the interview will always be made on the basis of individual circumstances. We have always made it clear that we will respond to people's needs in a sensitive way, but we do not believe that it would be right automatically to waive or defer the interview for specific groups.

As I said, we believe that the interviews and the advice and support of a personal adviser are helpful. We want the interviews to be positive. It would be quite wrong for certain groups of people who could benefit from getting that help to have to wait, often several months, until a PCA comes through. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

7 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

I thank the Minister for that explanation. However, I may not have entirely understood it. What happens if a claimant attends a work-focused interview and then, at that interview, is found to he incapable of work?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Claimants will acquire the entitlement to incapacity benefit by virtue of their score on the all-work test. As the noble Baroness will know, we are not changing anything on that issue; for example, if a person scores 15 points or more on the all-work test for physical disability, he will be entitled to IB; if he has a mental health incapacity, the score is 10 points. That is not changing. There is a Chinese wall between a person's entitlement to benefit and a personal capability assessment.

One of the big criticisms of the all-work test—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I were shoulder to shoulder on this when it was first introduced—is that it concentrates on the negatives. It concentrates on the things that people cannot do—they cannot put a hat on their head; they cannot lift a bag of potatoes; they cannot do this and they cannot do that—and they score points accordingly. One of the criticisms that has always been made by the disability groups—and which I was making on behalf of those same organisations when I was sitting on the Benches opposite—was that the test did not show what people could do. It did not show whether they had the capacity to do other things and could move on to other areas of work with appropriate support and training.

If someone in a HGV driving job developed major back problems, for example, and could not continue driving, it is possible that with retraining there may be some other, more clerically based jobs that he would like to do and be happy doing. The all-work test will simply ensure his entitlement to IB; the personal capability assessment will, given the nature of his situation—his disabilities and so on—discuss with him what he may be able to do. Whether he chooses to take up any of that advice remains entirely up to him.

Baroness Buscombe

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I wish to consider the matter a little more. Perhaps I may suggest that it will be referred to again under Clause 56. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 59, line 21, at end insert— ("() Regulations shall provide that a refusal by such a person to undertake work proposed at such an interview shall not, of itself, lead to a loss of benefit entitlement.")

The noble Baroness said: I should say at the outset that I have no quarrel with the general concept of a single gateway into the benefits system. I accept that it remains a complex system, even after attempts to simplify it. Many claimants have no idea of their entitlement, particularly older claimants. If a single gateway implies the establishment of a proper counselling service designed to ensure that claimants are fully aware of all the options open to them, including benefit entitlement, it can only be a welcome development. Of course, I also agree that people should be encouraged to take suitable employment. This would, of course, imply a fairly sophisticated training programme for the staff who will have to operate the scheme. I hope that arrangements will be in place for that to happen. I welcome the noble Baroness's assurances in that respect.

However, it seems to me that there may be problems. If there is an agenda at the back of all this designed to get as many people as possible off benefits, the temptations for the officials operating the scheme would be to pressurise people into taking employment, no matter how unsuitable or underpaid. I am particularly concerned about lone parents of young children. In fact, I wonder whether mothers of children under five should be expected to attend for interview at all. During one of our debates in the House about lone parents, an assurance was given on behalf of the Government that lone parents would not be compelled to take up employment.

Given what appears in other parts of the Bill, I sometimes question whether those who think up policies believe things have changed for women far more than they actually have. In a recent pilot scheme aimed at getting lone parents into work, which was conducted in Cardiff, it was noticeable that the only women who pronounced the scheme a success were those with professional training, for whom well paid jobs were available. The majority, who were not in that category, could see nothing in it for them.

Noble Lords have spoken about the disabled. I agree with the concerns that have been voiced. Again, I welcome the assurances given by the Minister in regard to some of those concerns.

As I read the Bill, it seems to me that people already in receipt of benefit could be summoned for a work-focused interview. Many people may feel scared or intimidated by the invitation to attend such an interview and may possibly not attend, thus risking the loss of benefits. The middle classes are used to dealing with officialdom and, generally speaking, are not intimidated by it. It is not always the same, I fear, for the ill-informed or the ill-educated.

If, therefore, the scheme is, as the Government have so often described it, a move to try to show claimants the range of options—and not to pressurise people into taking any sort of job, whether unsuitable, ill paid, perhaps a long way from home or with inconvenient hours and various other drawbacks—and if it is not a move to get people off benefits no matter how, it would seem reasonable to include something like my amendment on the face of the Bill.

I should not like to see this country moving in the direction of the United States' workfare system. Although I am sure that much can be learned from America, it must be recalled that it seems impossible for it to do anything about the increasingly dangerous underclass which exists in most major cities and which has become totally alienated from normal society. The Government have rightly proposed policies aimed at avoiding that kind of social exclusion. They should continue that philosophy by supporting my amendment, which stipulates that the regulations shall provide that a refusal by a person to undertake work proposed at an interview shall not of itself—I emphasise that—lead to a loss of benefit entitlement. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said. We understand the point the Minister has made many times that there will not be compulsion but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I remember some of our exchanges on the issue of single parents. There is a middle ground—a very undistributed middle—between being compelled to work and being allowed to continue to receive benefit. There is an area for feeling under pressure, under encouragement, under constant suggestion, under the instillation of a sense of guilt. All these things make a difference to people.

I do not know whether the Minister saw an article in the Observer just over a week ago about the missing millions. These are people who have disappeared from the benefit rolls and from most else as well. One of the people the Observer talked to said that he had gone off benefit and disappeared—he did not explain how he made his living; one might wonder—because he was tired of being made to feel a drain, no good, a burden on society and so forth every time he drew benefit. That is a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequence. The noble Baroness's amendment draws attention to that danger.

We need an assurance not only that people will not be compelled to work, but that it will be recognised that in the end they themselves—especially those with young children and if they are exempt from the actively seeking work rules—are the best judges of whether or not they ought to be working. That is a vital point of recognition of individuality, without which bureaucracy can become extremely burdensome.

I am very glad, too, that the noble Baroness said what she did about the United States. The United States has achieved a great deal of saving on its welfare rolls. I believe that 3 million people have disappeared from those rolls. We do not know what has happened to those people but we do know, when we consider the costs to the United States' and state treasuries, that the prison budget has taken up the slack left by the welfare system. That is a very expensive system. Concern for the taxpayer, if nothing else, would make it quite important to avoid it. So when one is thinking about pressure one ought to think about all these possible unintended consequences.

Where one is dealing with people with physical handicaps, who have occupied a great deal of our debate today, one should accept that very often they can judge what they are capable of doing when others cannot. To take as one example back conditions, there are many people who on some days can do a great deal of work. On other days they really cannot. No outsider can really judge that, and unless there is this recognition of people's individuality the whole thing will be a misery. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for drawing attention to precisely these points.

Lord Rix

I welcome this amendment because it would require any government considering a more radical approach to compulsion to bring forward primary legislation in order to introduce such a change. We may be aligning ourselves a little more closely to our European neighbours in terms of monetary policy, but when it comes to social policy transatlantic influences are clearly evident, as underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. There are a number of more radical US models of compulsion which I am certain that Parliament would want to scrutinise very carefully before their introduction in the United Kingdom is even contemplated.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

I rise to speak in strong support of this amendment. We accept that people should be encouraged to take up suitable employment but we question, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the pressure that may be put upon people to take up work, remembering that we are talking about a single gateway, which has that emphasis on work. In particular we have referred to lone parents with young children, those who are disabled and those recently bereaved.

Reactions to the Government's proposals for the single gateway from pressure groups has largely concentrated, as we have heard earlier, on the measures to compel benefit claimants to attend interviews as a condition of claiming benefit. I suggest also that it has to do with the pressure which may follow naturally on attendance at an interview. In an article for the Independent responding to an earlier article by Alistair Darling on the single gateway, Martin Barnes, Director of the Child Poverty Action Group said: The benefits regime is tough already, don't make it tougher. CPAG agrees that for those who want to and are able to work, paid employment is a route out of poverty. But work is not, Hid should not be made to be, an option for all—there must also be genuine security and dignity for those without paid work. The issue of tie adequacy of benefits should be addressed by Alistair Darling, not ignored. Benefits can help prevent poverty, even if the causes are many and complex".

Also, in a press release responding to tile Bill, Gingerbread, a pressure group representing lone parents, welcomed the fact that lone parents would have access to accurate information about work, training and work-related benefits. Gingerbread, in a press release on the welfare reform Bill on 10th February 1999, expressed its concern over certain aspects of the proposals for the single gateway, and in particular whether the interview would be carried out by an adviser with expertise on the specific needs of lone parents, such as childcare and training needs.

Gingerbread also argued that for lone parents who had recently been through a separation pressure could add to an individual's stress. On the issue of lone parents and work, it argued that lone parents should be able to make a choice about whether or not they work, based on the needs of their children. They said that parenting was important work, with a long-term benefit to society. Ii must be made clear that lone parents will not have to work. They will only attend an interview to receive information.

That point brings us to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in relation to compulsion in connection with interviews. It should also be impressed upon personal advisers that there has to be a really careful balance struck between the need to encourage people to feel positive about work and also about the need to accept that there are many people on benefits now who, for good reason, wish to remain so, particularly lone parents, the disabled and those recently bereaved.

A number of examples have been raised this afternoon as to why compulsory interviews should not take place. I think there are many more examples. I would particularly refer to multiple sclerosis, where sufferers from that disease can often go through a long period of remission. When in remission they would be perfectly capable of taking up a job, but I would hope that the Minister can give reassurance that the personal advisers would understand that such remission is for an unforeseeable period, and that the patient, though feeling well at the interview and able to take up work, may within days or weeks, or overnight, have relapsed into a state in which he or she is simply not capable of working. Therefore in supporting this amendment, we are asking for an enormous degree of sensitivity in relation to the whole interview process. As has been said earlier, we thoroughly support the principle of the interview but we would want to be reassured that nobody would be put under pressure to accept a job where that would be unreasonable.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

If I may begin with that last point, I am very happy to give that assurance. I will not deal with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he is not in his place at the moment; but my noble friend Lady Turner raised this matter in terms of whether a lone parent, for example, should be expected to work if there is a child under five, or even to go to an interview at all, on the assumption that anyone with a child under five would not want to work and should not come for an interview.

Under the new deal for lone parents, I have been startled to find that nearly a third of those seeking to come on to the new deal have children under five. I think we accept too easily and too freely the assumptions, often of a different generation, of what women themselves say that they want. Our intention with these interviews, as the noble Earl said, is to empower people who are the best judges of what they should do to make that judgment in an informed way, if they are lone parents or have a disability. Lone parents were telling me, even those with children under five, that they did not see that going into work was an inferior way of bringing up children; they actually thought it was the best way of bringing up their children, providing that the hours and the pay were right and that childcare was available.

As my noble friend has explained, this amendment is intended to ensure that the provisions in Clause 52 cannot be used to force benefit claimants to take up employment against their will. I can assure her that no such intention lies behind the taking of this path. The Government have made their position very clear, both in the other place and in this Chamber. We wish to introduce into the benefits system a requirement that clients of working age take part in the "one" interviews. We are not introducing into this clause any further conditions. We do want people to attend the interviews, to talk about the barriers that stand in their way and to discuss the help and opportunities that are available to them. They will then be free to decide for themselves whether to take up those opportunities. It will be a matter of choice, but it will be informed choice. So I am happy, as I have said, to reassure my noble friend. I hope that as a result she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I thank my noble friend for the assurances she has given this afternoon. I am very glad that they will be in Hansard and that we shall be able to look at them again. However, I still wonder, since that is so, why there would be any objection at all to including my wording, or something very similar to it, on the face of the Bill. As I said earlier, people can feel intimidated by a requirement to attend for interview. I have evidence of that, as I am often approached by women seeking advice on these matters. If that is the case, I do not see why there should not be a provision on the face of the Bill stating positively that if a person turns down an offer of employment, that does not, of itself, disqualify the claimant from benefit. However, in view of the noble Baroness's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I may return to the matter on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 59, line 26, leave out paragraph (d)

The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 101, and respectfully suggest that it might make a great deal of sense to speak next to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together.

Amendment No. 101 relates specifically to widows and widows' bereavement benefits falling within Sections 21E and 21EA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. This amendment is important. We do not believe it appropriate to engage people in the gateway process and encourage them to find work in certain circumstances. This matter has been discussed; however, it is important to make reference to bereavement benefits.

We are concerned that in certain circumstances, at a very difficult time, people should not be forced to take part in a "one" in order to receive benefit. Although there are to be exceptions to compulsion, we believe that regulations regarding those exceptions should be carefully crafted to protect those who may, for example, be suffering considerable, albeit invisible, mental distress.

We also question the skills of the personal advisers and the extent of their training to deal with such cases. In addition, account should be taken of widows with dependent children. It is fair to say that women, particularly those who make what is often a difficult choice to stop work in order to care for their children, lose considerable confidence when they do so. They need an enormous amount of support to face the world of work again; and they will be doing so without their spouse to support them and help them to regain that confidence. I can speak from personal experience. When I stopped work to have my three children, I found that my confidence in the workplace was considerably reduced. It has taken some time to find it again.

Further, we believe that we should respect the fact that many widows, and indeed widowers, will possibly have spent many months, even years, caring for their partners and are simply not in the physical and mental good health that is necessary to seek work. The Bill includes an exemption for those with "good cause". We ask: who is the arbiter of that cause? Again, the personal carers will have an enormous responsibility placed upon them. There is also a question as to whether they will be able to understand people's sensitivities. We heard earlier from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that some interviewers are simply not sensitive. We must confront that fact. People are human, and some have failings in that sense. So we are asking for reassurance, if the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, that as part of the training for personal advisers considerable regard is paid to the very sensitive period that widows and those in receipt of bereavement benefits go through. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me. I understood from her introductory remarks that she intended to group all three amendments together.

Baroness Buscombe

I should like to speak to the next two amendments together.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

So this amendment is separate and the next two will be taken together. I misunderstood the noble Baroness.

Amendment No. 101 seeks to exclude widows and widowers from the requirement to participate in a work-focused interview. I have every sympathy with the intention that those who have recently experienced bereavement should be treated with respect, consideration and sensitivity. I do not believe that excluding people from the "one" service is the right way to do it.

The noble Baroness will recall that when we discussed widows' benefits the other evening, I tried to make the point that many widows or widowers are already in work when their spouse becomes ill; they become carers, possibly for only a fortnight, for a month, or for two or three years; and although they want to return to work, they may need help to do so. Others will move back into work very speedily. As I said, in that case, women often find it easier to return to work than do men. Others, particularly those who find themselves with childcare responsibilities, will want to stay in touch with the possibilities and to explore what they might do in future. The "one" service will enable them to do so, by providing each individual with a personal adviser who will help them to gain access to the help and support that is available to them. Personal advisers will receive guidance and training to help them to relate to clients in an appropriate and sensitive way. An immediate interview is not necessarily appropriate, in which case personal advisers will be able to defer the requirement and pay the benefit as soon as possible. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I listened with great care to the recent debate on the question of widow's bereavement benefit. It is important to stress the difference between many women of our generation who are in the world of work today and, in contrast, women of my mother's generation, were she to be alive today; namely, women in their 70s and 80s. There are many women who, although they are still of working age, are not used to working or have become unused to it. We believe that enormous sensitivity should apply in such cases. I hear what the Minister says in terms of the training of personal advisers and her reassurance that sensitivity will be an important part of that training. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 59, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)

The noble Baroness said: As I suggested, it would make sense to speak to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together. I shall be brief. Much of what I had intended to say has already been covered in considerable discussion. However, I make no apology for repeating that, although we and the disability organisations believe that engaging disabled people in the gateway and encouraging them to find work is important and right, it is also crucial to ensure that genuinely disabled people are not pushed into situations and interviews for which they are not well enough.

In that regard, particular reference must be made to those who feel almost an innate sense of fear in terms of the compulsion to attend a "work-focused" interview rather than, as I have previously suggested, a "personal development" interview, because they feel that they will not be capable of responding properly to that interview.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, gave some straightforward and moving examples, with particular reference to his daughter, as to why the whole interview process should not be compulsory for certain people.

I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who again and again has pushed for the removal of any words that express compulsion in relation to the work-focused interview for those in receipt of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. We do not believe that that is a positive way forward. Many disabled people want to work, and they should be encouraged to have work-focused interviews. However, there are those for whom this proposal is unrealistic. If the interview is compulsory, fine: the person will turn up for the interview or it will take place in the home. But in the end how much will be gained from making those interviews compulsory? Those who want to work and seek information can do so by choice. We very much hope that through that process they will be guided in the right direction, supported and will find work, which is laudable. However, we suggest that for those who are incapable of work and do not want to attend an interview compulsion will not take the process any further, in which case the whole cost of the process will not justify making it compulsory. If it is optional most people will take it up, but there is a significant group of people who will not do so. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Earl Russell

I offer my support for this group of amendments. If I do not explain why it is only because I would be repeating either what I or the noble Baroness have said, or both.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

These two amendments would remove claimants of IB and SDA from the requirements of the Bill to participate in the "one" interviews. I do not accept that. There are 1.6 million who receive IB, all of whom once had a job. Nearly 400,000 currently receive SDA. They have very different conditions and needs and range from people who are off work for a few weeks with a bad back to people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It is vital that we should be able to treat each person as an individual and take steps towards meeting each person's needs, as the "one" service is designed to do.

The personal adviser will consider each case individually and decide whether there should be an interview now, whether it should be deferred or waived altogether or whether it should take place in the home. The advisers will be extensively trained with the support of the professional voluntary organisations that relate to the area of our debate this evening. Where the client will not benefit, for example if he or she has a terminal illness, the interview will be waived; where it is not appropriate at the particular time, perhaps because the individual has just come out of hospital, it may be deferred until he or she is ready to think about the future. But in all these cases there is a real role for the personal adviser to sort out benefit claims and support and advise on a future plan of action to help out the individual and the carer, if there is one.

The crunch point between us is whether the interview should be compulsory or optional. The noble Baroness believes that most people who would benefit from an interview would take it up. That is not our experience in relation to the New Deal for lone parents where about three-quarters of those concerned do not respond to an invitation. However, of those who do respond, 88 per cent take up the invitation. That is a new voluntary scheme which is not well publicised and is still in its infancy. However, those who take up that invitation benefit from it. We are concerned about those who do not know what they do not know and miss out on the opportunities to learn.

Earl Russell

Does not the noble Baroness offer us the classic case of the pre-selected sample?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Yes. Where it is voluntary those who already are fairly knowledgeable about the help on offer come forward, whereas those who are not fail to come forward. The latter are the ones in greatest need. The noble Earl makes my point better than I could myself.

Earl Russell

Has the Minister any reason to assume that the same success rate will be scored for those who do not come forward voluntarily?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

It is not a success rate judged by whether somebody goes to work but by whether somebody is able to make an informed choice as to what to do. For example, based on experience under the New Deal, someone who fails to attend an interview, perhaps because of poor educational qualifications or because he or she lives in a poor and isolated estate and is unaware of the opportunities, remains the most disadvantaged and handicapped. One either accepts that people do not know what they do not know or that there is an open choice. I believe that the true way to help people is to empower them to make informed choices, which is the purpose of the interview.

If, following the interview, people choose not to go to work because it is not appropriate for them, we agree with that choice; that is their choice which they have every right to make. But they cannot make that choice if they are not informed of the basis of it. For that reason, we believe it is right that, unless there is good reason either to defer or waive the interview, people should attend as part of the claims process. In that way, the remaining steps that they may want to take will be based on an informed choice which otherwise they may not be able to make.

Baroness Buscombe

I thank the Minister for her explanation. It will probably be difficult to reach an agreement on this matter. We firmly believe that certain people should be given the choice whether or not to attend an interview. That will relieve stress and fear and create a much more positive environment to help people to cope. We may return to this matter at a later stage. However, on the basis that the Minister has given a number of assurances this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments No. 103 and 104 not moved.]

Baroness Amos

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.