| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I hope that those explanations have satisfied the noble Lord, but I should be happy to answer any supplementary questions.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his comments. This has been a useful debate. Obviously, these are probing amendments and we are not seeking necessarily to remove these clauses. They will be interesting to study in the light of the Minister’s contribution because this is an extremely complex issue. I made light of the complexity but I am well aware that, from the department’s point of view, this area is extremely complex because the traditional patterns of relationships do not apply nowadays. Even polygamy may well be considered to be a fairly rigid form of relationship which may not fit in with other couple-type arrangements which I expect would be covered by the regulations, which the Minister has not really addressed in his response. I hope that I am right to say that relationships where a man, for example, is the head of household in two entirely different families without one family knowing about the other, will be covered by this clause. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: If you look to the situation of a household involving polygamous marriages, the level of a claim that that household would make is actually less than would arise if, say, one of the wives were not treated as being part of that household and she claimed separately. I think that that is the situation.
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC222
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: That makes sense. It had occurred to me that it might well be the case that there would not be an incentive when claiming as a couple and that a single-member household would be more likely to be affected. However, these are complex matters, so if the Minister has something to add, it would be useful to hear.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I have another point to add. It would obviously be fraudulent if someone put in a claim for two households.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have to say that the complexity of the issue is profound and it is useful that the Minister has been able to address it. The verification of a claim will also be difficult in certain households, as we have learnt. It would be useful if the Minister could come back to us in writing with further explanations on this issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
37: Clause 2, page 5, line 18, after “requirement,” insert—
“( ) it has been shown that all reasonable attempts have been made to contact the person,”
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: This amendment and the ones grouped with it are about the importance of Jobcentre Plus staff making sure that they have taken enough steps to ensure that claimants under this part of the Bill—that is, lone parents in the progression-to-work group and the partners of certain claimants who are on JSA or ESA and in the progression-to-work group—are contacted before any sanctions can be applied following a claimant’s failure to attend work-related activity.
What are “reasonable attempts”? In my view, reasonable attempts to contact a person should not just be by automated letter which could easily not be understood to be specifically about a claimant’s case, or it could be delayed or lost where, for example, the post for various flats is not sorted out properly. It should be followed up with at least one telephone call. The Minister may say that this is done now, but are we sure that it happens in every case? Is it written down anywhere in guidance as a requirement? This would also ensure that the recipient properly understands what is happening—something that I have been concerned about for some time, given the relatively large number of sanctions that are imposed and on which my noble friend gave a rather alarming figure last week. I wonder what language Jobcentre Plus staff use. I hope that they use words other than “sanction” and “conditionality”, and that they manage to communicate that if claimants do not take certain steps, their benefit will be reduced.
The grouped amendment states that the prescribed period before a sanction is applied should be 10 and not five days. Five days is a very short time. For a start, it does not take into account the vagaries of the postal system. Could the five-day period straddle a weekend?
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC223
Baroness Meacher: I support Amendment 37 and wish to speak to Amendment 86. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that on the second day in Committee he gave a commitment that people with mental health problems would not have benefit sanctions imposed unless a home visit had been made. I take it from the noble Lord’s nod that he agrees.
Baroness Meacher: I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that it applies not only to ESA claimants with mental health problems but also to those who might be claiming other benefits. I am not entirely clear about it, although perhaps I should be. I am concerned that anyone with a mental health problem, for exactly the reasons the noble Baroness indicated, needs to be seen face to face. Indeed, I am grateful to the Minister for making that commitment; we now need to clarify the breadth of it.
I was going to raise a further point in relation to this: does the Minister think it would be helpful if, under the Bill but not on its face, he could make a commitment that attempts would be made to work with workers who are in any way involved with those who have mental health problems? A lot of these people have social workers, CPNs and others working with them, so if the DWP personal adviser cannot make contact, it is likely that one of these other workers could do so. They could agree to phone someone and have a conversation. Although I understand that it would not be reasonable to put this kind of detail in the Bill, a commitment from the Minister for guidance along these lines could ensure that this aspect of the legislation would operate far more effectively than in the absence of such a provision. We discussed these issues on our second day in Committee and I do not want to prolong the debate except to seek clarity on these two particular issues.
Amendment 86 would amend Amendment 85. I set out my reasoning when the Minister and I met with the Bill team. I was saying that people with severe or even moderate mental health problems should probably be in a special employment support allowance group where there is no conditionality but there is voluntary
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC224
That is my basic position, but if it is not possible, surely we have to be realistic and provide a decent amount of time for these people to get themselves together sufficiently at least to be able to pick up the phone. Frankly, five or 10 days are not sufficient. People coming into in-patient units are likely to be in-patients for an average of eight weeks and probably more. It takes weeks for them to evolve from that situation to a position where they can handle the stresses and strains of the benefit system. Twenty days are just about acceptable, but none of this makes sense for those with moderate or severe mental health problems.
Lord Rix: I hope that these requirements do not rely on the postal service, of which I can give an example, although admittedly it is rather old now. When I was offered my knighthood, a letter came from No. 10 Downing Street addressed with the wrong postal code. It was 12 days before I received the letter, which said that I had to reply by return. Obviously I thought that I had missed my knighthood. I wrote an acceptance and rushed to the post in my dressing-gown, and it was clear that the neighbours thought I had reverted to type because once again I was without my trousers.
7 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: Cap that. I support the rationale behind the noble Baroness’s amendments; indeed, as the Committee will note, I have added my name to Amendment 42. They would ensure that the participant was given a fair and reasonable chance to prove himself to have good cause for failing to uphold his duties under the scheme. If he failed to turn up to the work-related activity, the amendments would make certain that all reasonable attempts were made to get in touch with him, and in any case he would have 10 working days, rather than the customary five, to respond.
The noble Baroness mentioned evidence from a group that has lobbied on this point. I add for my part that I was impressed by the arguments put forward by the Mental Health Coalition that those suffering from acute mental health problems might not have the wherewithal to pull themselves back into the state of mind where they can make a fully justified response—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The amendments would stretch the period to a full two weeks, which is not a huge amount of time. Given that the penalty for not responding within the stated time frame is the closure of a person’s claim, there are just grounds for extending the period to prevent a person being unfairly penalised for their health condition. It does not really matter whether it is the health condition itself, the postal service or being unable to get through on the telephone to the jobcentre or the contractor that is to blame.
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC225
Rethink, the mental health charity, circulated to noble Lords the views of one of its members, David, which I shall recount for purposes of illustration:
“Mental illness isn't like being in a wheelchair or having a bad back—it can take from you the capacity to manage your own affairs. It can mean that you can't summon the mental strength to drag yourself out of bed, let alone open and read a letter, digest the implications and then do the sensible thing and pick up the phone and take the action required. I've got bipolar and by definition it's a fluctuating condition—you have ups and downs. In my case the downs last at least 10 days or two weeks. It's quite possible when things are at their worst when I'm down that I just would not have the wherewithal to respond in time to a deadline from a job advisor. It might be five days later—but that would be five days too late”.
I realise that the time set in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 is five days, and that the noble Baroness's Amendments 85 and 86 seek to change that too. Perhaps this is an occasion where the refusal to take no for an answer is to be commended. Why have the Government chosen five working days? I presume that they have been pressed on this matter by mental health campaigners, if not others. If that is the case, why has the Minister decided to ignore that advice and press ahead with five days? Are there any convincing and persuasive statistics—it is very unlike me to ask for that; it is normally the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—with which he can blind us which would help us to support the Government's position on this?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am delighted that postal delays did not prevent the noble Lord, Lord Rix, receiving his just deserts. I thank noble Lords for these amendments, the sentiment of which I agree with entirely. It is right that we make all reasonable efforts to contact vulnerable customers before we sanction their benefit and that we give our customers a reasonable amount of time to show good cause for not complying with the work-related activity requirements. However, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
I shall deal first with Amendment 37 and the first part of Amendment 85. Under these amendments a claimant could be sanctioned for failure to comply with the regulations on work-related activity only where the Secretary of State could show that all reasonable attempts to contact the claimant had been made. I assure noble Lords that Jobcentre Plus advisers already make every effort to contact vulnerable customers before a sanction is imposed. It may be helpful if I outline in detail how Jobcentre Plus will inform ESA customers and parents of their new responsibilities and the steps that advisers will take in the event that a customer fails to undertake work-related activity. The process will be very similar to the existing process in ESA if a customer fails to engage in a work-focused interview.
First, Jobcentre Plus will contact all customers to explain what is required of them and book the first work-focused interview. It will also write to the customer confirming the appointment and reiterating these conditions. In addition, two days before the work-focused interview is due, Jobcentre Plus will contact the customer by telephone to remind them about the interview and remind them again of their responsibilities.
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC226
The Countess of Mar: Not everyone who is unemployed will have a telephone. They may not even have a mobile phone. How will they be contacted then?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Probably by post in those circumstances.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may open up that issue. Has not a personal visit been considered in these cases? That would seem to be the obvious answer.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I need to check volumes and practicalities on this. I shall do that and revert to noble Lords specifically on that point. I am not sure about the percentage of people, unemployed or otherwise, who have access to a telephone. Perhaps I can get some data on that as well.
As I said, two days before the work-focused interview is due, Jobcentre Plus will contact the customer by telephone to remind them about the interview and again remind them of their responsibilities. At this stage, an interview can be re-booked if the customer has a valid reason for not attending at the time originally agreed. During the initial work-focused interview the personal adviser will, before starting the interview, explain the progression-to-work model and what will be expected of the customer. This will include the work-related activity requirement and the power that the adviser has to direct the claimant to a specific work-related activity in limited circumstances.
If the personal adviser establishes that the customer has a mental health condition, learning disability or other condition affecting cognition, such as a stroke or autistic spectrum disorder, they will make an additional explanation of the conditionality to ensure that the customer understands the requirements. If a customer fails to carry out the work-related activity, the adviser will discuss this non-compliance with the customer at the work-focused interview. This provides the first opportunity for the customer to show the adviser that they had good cause for not complying with the work-related activity requirement.
If the customer fails to show good cause for non-compliance at the interview, we envisage that the personal adviser will hand the customer a letter explaining that they now have five days to show good cause for non-compliance. If there is attendance at the interview, the letter would be handed to someone. If a customer does not turn up for a work-focused interview, and therefore does not show good cause for not carrying out the work-related activity, the customer will be posted a letter outlining the consequences of their non-compliance and will then have five working days to show good cause.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: If the claimant cannot speak English well enough to understand what is being said, would it be possible at that point to have some kind of interpretation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: This touches upon the issue generally of someone who has a carer, an advocate or someone supporting them and the question of the
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC227
I am advised that we have no information on access to telephones but, if someone has no number, the reminder is dealt with through the post.
I have dealt with the point that if a customer does not turn up to a work-focused interview, a letter will be posted to them. If a customer has a mental health condition, learning difficulties, a condition affecting cognition or autistic spectrum disorder, the personal adviser will arrange for a home visit to take place. This will ensure that the customer fully understands the requirements upon them and the consequences of not complying. The adviser will always attempt to meet the customer before any reduction of benefit is imposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked if this would apply to non-ESA claimants or whether the assurance that I gave the other day would run more generally. The answer is that if we know that someone on JSA has a mental health condition, the same process would follow. However, I am mindful that we would not always know. If someone comes through the ESA work-focused, health-related assessment, it is much more likely that there will be an awareness of their condition.
Lord Northbourne: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is an important point. What if the person cannot read? A significant number of children leave school functionally illiterate, and we have immigrants and the wives of immigrants who do not speak English at all, and indeed many who cannot read. What happens then? The Minister is outlining a most threatening situation for those sorts of people.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The fact that someone may not be able to read should be clear to Jobcentre Plus because we are dealing here with processes where someone has accessed the system.
Lord Northbourne: I am talking about the initial approach when the letter arrives. People look at the thing and have to be given time at least to go to the citizens’ advice bureau to find out what it is about.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The fact that someone has a reading difficulty or cannot read and speak English should be known to Jobcentre Plus because people come in for an interview with their adviser. It is only down the track that we are talking about sanctions. We consider sanctions if someone accessed the system in the first place but did not turn up for a work-focused interview or undertake a mandatory work-related activity.
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC228
Lord Northbourne: It is the initial contact which is troubling me: the first contact when the jobcentre tries to make contact.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The initial contact is effectively brought about the other way around. It happens when someone calls a contact centre or presents themselves to Jobcentre Plus seeking to make a claim. At that point it should be obvious if someone has difficulty with the English language, although it would be less obvious that they had a literacy problem. The role of the adviser should be to try to identify what barriers to work and employment someone has and therefore we would expect these issues to be identified along the way. Once it is established that there has been a failure to undertake work-related activity and the sanctions regime is involved, Jobcentre Plus should be well aware of the individual circumstances.
One cannot guarantee that this will work perfectly in all cases, but protections are in place. Again, I have a letter ready to go to the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, who is not with us at the moment. It picks up on a point she raised on the first day in Committee about the support available to those from ethnic minorities who do not have English as a first language and the ability for people to have advocates with them at their interview. I can say specifically that Jobcentre Plus has experience of providing jobseekers with interpretation services. We can extend the experience so that that which operates for JSA could be built on for progression-to-work.
7.15 pm
Under the new sanctions model that we are proposing, the first time that a customer fails to comply with their conditionality requirements they will receive a formal warning letter rather than a financial sanction. This will provide an additional opportunity to ensure that the customer understands the consequences of non-compliance. In the event that the customer is then sanctioned for a further episode of non-compliance without good cause, they will be able to appeal the decision. Taken together, these steps represent a good opportunity to show good cause and significant safeguards to protect vulnerable claimants.
Amendment 42 and the second part of Amendment 85 would impose a limit of 10 days in which the claimant could provide evidence of good cause for failure to comply with their work-related activity requirement. Amendment 86 would impose a limit of 20 days for that purpose. As described above, our intention is to mirror the current period of five days that claimants have to show good cause for failure to attend a work-focused interview. I believe that this is a reasonable approach. Research shows that an effective sanction should be a swift, clear and obvious response to a particular failure, otherwise customers do not understand why they are being sanctioned and so do not rectify
15 Jun 2009 : Column GC229
I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns that vulnerable customers, particularly those with severe mental health conditions or chaotic lifestyles, may find this difficult to comply with. However, we need to strike a balance so that people cannot abuse the system by deliberately not providing us with reasons for their non-compliance for four whole weeks. I do not believe that the customers we are discussing here would fall into this category but there would be some, if only a tiny minority, who sought to take advantage. It is right that time limits for showing good cause should be in regulations and not in the Bill as that gives us flexibility to change the period in the future should we gain clear evidence that five days is not appropriate for our vulnerable customers.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |