Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 34: 34: Clause 8 , page 6, line 22, at end insert— ““( ) as to the duties of third parties to provide relevant information and evidence and the manner in which it is to be provided;”” The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 35. The purpose of Amendment No. 34 is to ensure that doctors or consultants—I was going to say ““relevant healthcare professionals”” but I changed it—provide the necessary information in a timely manner. As many as 30 per cent of reports about claimants from GPs are not returned in time for them to be considered during their PCA. If the report arrives after the PCA has been carried out but before the decision-maker has made the decision based on the PCA, the GP’s late report will be taken into account. But the decision-making process will not be held up, I gather, to await the GP’s report. However, if the decision is appealed, the report will be taken into account. Surely more effort should be taken to make sure that the GP’s report, or consultant’s report, is received by the time the PCA is undertaken. GPs have 10 working days in which to return the form. The average GP will receive only about one or two such requests a week, if that. The other matter I am concerned about is the up-to-date examination by the GP of the claimant. Although GPs are asked on the form when they last saw their patient, I wonder whether their reply is taken into account and whether they should be given more time to examine their patient if that patient has not been seen recently. The reason it is important for this matter to be addressed is that there are a great number of appeals, many of which are successful. If the rules were tightened for a swift return of the GP’s form, or for an extra few days to be allowed solely to enable the patient to be examined by the GP, much time, effort and money could be saved. I beg to move.