Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 49: 49: Clause 10 , page 8, line 2, at end insert ““and ( ) not in the assessment phase,”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60. The amendments are intended to prevent the work-related interview being included in the conditionality that this part establishes. They also address the wider issue of how conditionality will be applied when the support that a claimant is due is not yet available—which is clearly important. At Second Reading the Minister indicated that no sanctions would be imposed before support was fully rolled out. That is an important commitment. It would certainly be unjust to expect more from claimants than they can expect from providers. I am glad that the Government completely agree with that principle. I am therefore surprised that we continue to see references to the conditionality of the first work-focused health-related interview, which the Government intend to fall right at the beginning of the assessment period. How can the Minister square his commitment to providing full support before instigating conditionality with the possibility that someone may be subject to sanctions before they have started receiving their full ESA entitlement? Even if the financial penalty is imposed only after the end of the 13-week assessment period, an expectation is being placed on the claimant with conditionality but without the commensurate support being available. There is then the added matter of the practical issues of applying this conditionality. I have touched on a couple of these questions in the debate on a previous amendment. Can the Minister explain how a healthcare assessor will indicate to a claimant that he must go to a second interview when the assessor cannot be sure that conditionality applies? If the second interview, which I now understand will be the work-focused health-related assessment, is not necessary for determining which group the claimant will fall into, there is no reason for it to be compulsory. Early intervention might be the most effective way to return someone to a work-ready state but, as we have said, we do not see why some element of choice cannot be introduced. Why do the Government not allow the second interview to be available but optional for the assessment period, reflecting the limited support available, but allowing those who feel capable to start their work-related activity as soon as possible? Claimants who are then uncertain whether they are eligible for the support group can be spared the uncertainty and pressure of being compelled to attend an interview which might not be necessary or helpful. I appreciate that the number of claimants who fall into this grey area will be small. I also understand that the Government expect that most of those eligible for the support group will not even need to attend the first interview due to the severity of their disabilities. There will therefore be no question of them attending the second interview or of being threatened with sanctions. But this will not cover everyone and I hope that the Government will carefully consider my points before imposing the threat of conditionality on even a few claimants who should not be exposed to that sort of pressure. I do not feel that what I am suggesting is impractical. From the cases studies the Government have provided, it appears that the first time a claimant misses a work-related activity appointment for no good reason, the response will be a conversation explaining the consequences should the behaviour continue. That is very sensible. Conditionality is a new requirement that claimants may not have experienced; only wilfully and persistently obstructive behaviour should bring down the ultimate sanction of losing a part of their benefit. Since a restrained and proportionate approach is to be taken, missing the second interview should result only in a discussion about what can be expected if the behaviour continues after the assessment period ends and the claimant is found to be capable of undertaking work-related activity, but no more. Why, therefore, are the Government not extending this reasonable attitude to the assessment period? If they have no intention of implementing sanctions at such an early stage, why is the power to do so in the Bill? The amendment also gives me the opportunity to ask a question to which I should know the answer. Is benefit reduction to be applied only to the full-blown ESA or can it be applied during the assessment period? I beg to move.