§ Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 9, leave out ("in such cases as may be prescribed,")
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 44 to 46, 66 to 71 and 77 to 80.
§ Mr. ScottThese are all technical amendments and it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved them formally.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWe now come to Lords amendment No. 7. [Interruption.] Sorry, it should be Lords amendment No. 9. I call the Minister.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I agree that there are too many papers. Before the Minister speaks to the amendment, I must say that I have been rather tolerant this afternoon. The debate on the first group of amendments 144 went rather wide. My period of tolerance has now ended and hon. Members should address the amendments before the House.
4.45 pm
Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 6, line 14, at end insert
("or training of such other description as may be prescribed")
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 65.
§ Mr. ScottI am sure that hon. Members, and certainly those who took part in the Committee stage, will recall our discussions in our earlier proceedings. Concern was expressed about the scope of the long training linking rule introduced as part of the incapacity benefit structure. I said then that that was an issue at which I was prepared to look again with sympathy. I undertook to respond, before the end of the Bill's passage, on the outcome of our deliberations. These four amendments were tabled in another place to give effect to our proposals.
As hon. Members may already be aware, the training linking rule is intended to provide an incentive for people receiving incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance to try to make a return to work. It provides a safeguard in that if their attempt fails because of their incapacity, they can return to the same benefit that they were previously receiving within two years. Additionally, it protects the position of those people who are assessed as capable of work and who begin, or are already undertaking, a training course. If their condition deteriorates again within the two-year period—as it may in some cases—those people could also return to their previous benefit.
I hope that hon. Members will understand that, for people undertaking a training course where a training allowance is not payable, incapacity benefit will remain in payment so long as they continue to satisfy the test of incapacity for work. If at any stage during a person's course of training that person is assessed as no longer satisfying the test of incapacity, as one would reasonably expect, that benefit would cease. Those rules will, as now, apply equally to SDA.
Hon. Members will understand that anyone undertaking a non-Department of Employment course who continues to be incapable of work will have no need of the linking rule. That person's benefit will continue in payment. However, the amendments that I am commending to the House today will benefit people who are undertaking a course of training and fail a test of incapacity and those who begin a training course on leaving benefit.
The amendments expand the use of the term "training for work" as used in the Bill to include
training of such other description as may be prescribed".That will apply to the long linking rule on both incapacity benefit and SDA.Amendments Nos. 9 and 65 relate to incapacity benefit and amendment No. 40 relates to severe disablement allowance. That broader definition of "training for work" will also apply to the new qualifying benefit rule on DWA. That allows a person to undertake a period of training between leaving a qualifying benefit, whether that be incapacity benefit or SDA, and making a claim for DWA. Amendment No. 41 gives effect to that change.
145 We feel that it is essential to use regulations for that provision. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that training provision has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and will no doubt continue to change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is important that legislation in this important area is sufficiently flexible to allow us to keep it up to date when any new relevant initiatives arise.
We have not as yet finalised the drafting of regulations to be made under those powers, but I can tell the House what we intend them to cover. Regulations will specify both additional Department of Employment programmes and the types of non-Government training courses that should be covered. We expect, for example, employment rehabilitation and community action programmes—both run by the Department—to be included. With non-Government training, we intend to include full-time courses, the sole or main purpose of which is the acquisition of occupational or vocational skills. Full-time is defined as "16 hours or more".
As I am sure the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will recall, the issue of funding such schemes through the European social fund was raised in Committee. I can assure the House that as long as the sole or main purpose of the course funded by the European social fund is the acquisition of occupational or vocational skills, such courses will be covered by the broader definition. I hope that these changes will be welcomed in the House and outside it.
§ Mr. BradleyClearly, we welcome the Minister's announcement and the amendments that have been tabled. He has looked carefully at the arguments that were put forward in Committee. Our deliberations have borne some fruit today, and we welcome that.
I simply seek clarification not specifically on training but on a related topic, namely, therapeutic earnings. Following our discussions in Committee, a concession was made, and I welcome the correspondence from the Under-Secretary of State.
The way in which the Government have considered the matter is to bring forward the definition of "therapeutic work" as work that is undertaken under medical supervision in a hospital or similar institution. I seek clarification from the Minister as to whether that is as narrowly defined as it would appear to be because, if it is, it clearly seems to fly in the face of the Government's policy on community care.
I should like the Minister to tell the House whether the therapeutic rules will cover people who are living in the community but who are, for example, out-patients of a hospital or other institution, and whether similar rules will cover people who live in the community and attend adult training centres or other similar centres run by local authorities, the voluntary sector or health service authorities. Clearly, that is linked to the views on training. It seemed to us that, although there had been a concession on therapeutic work, it has been extremely narrowly defined.
Will the Minister examine the definition in the broader context of community care with a view to extending the scope for an individual to receive therapeutic earnings? 146 Clearly, we welcome the amendment, and I would welcome any further comments that the Minister may have on that point.
§ Mr. ScottI think that the hon. Gentleman recognises my anxiety in this whole area, to enable a smooth transition from, as it were, incapacity through into work. Therefore, the whole issue of therapeutic work is something in which I take a continued and constructive interest.
In practice, there are two types of therapeutic work. There is therapeutic work within some sort of institution and under medical supervision. It is also possible for a person living in the community to have the same advantage as someone in an institution, as long as the work is recommended by their doctor as being therapeutic in its effect. I hope that that covers the main point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
§
Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
("(4) There shall be excluded any days in respect of which a person was disqualified for receiving incapacity benefit.")
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 16, 17, 26, 28, 29, 31, 73 and 81.
§ Mr. ScottThe amendments in this group are of a technical nature and deal with the action to be taken where a person falls into one of three categories, namely, he has become incapable of work through misconduct, he fails without good cause to attend or submit himself to such medical or other treatment as required or, thirdly, he fails without good cause to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour.
In any of those circumstances, a financial penalty will be imposed by stopping the payment of benefit for a period of up to six weeks. At the end of that period, benefit should be reinstated without requiring a further claim to benefit. I hope that these amendments will be acceptable to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.