Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 88: 88: After Clause 21 , insert the following new Clause— ““Prescription charges Persons for whom employment and support allowance (income-based or contribution-based) is their only household income and who satisfy the savings threshold for income-based employment and support allowance are exempt from prescription charges.”” The noble Baroness said: On the first day of Committee the Minister said that people on income-related ESA will have automatic access to full housing benefit and council tax benefit and, "““we expect that customers on income-related ESA will also have access to a range of other passported benefits, such as prescription charges or free school meals””.—[Official Report, 20/2/07; cols. GC 5-6.]" The amendment aims to put beyond doubt that those for whom either strand of ESA is their only household income, and who satisfy the savings threshold for means-tested ESA, are exempt from prescription charges. There is so much concern about this particular passported benefit because the affordability of prescribed medication is of great concern to people with long-term health problems on low incomes. In 2001, Citizens Advice commissioned MORI to carry out a survey, which showed that 750,000 people failed to get their prescriptions dispensed because they could not afford the charge. CAB advise many clients, including those receiving contribution-based IB, who are struggling to afford prescription charges and who are unaware of the potential help available to them under the low income scheme. The majority of ESA claimants will be expected to undertake work-related activity as a condition of receiving benefit; and many will need medication to manage their health in order to carry out work-related activity. Many examples from the files of Citizens Advice show what a real problem this is around the country. I could read some of them out, but I will not at this point. Unless the amendment, or something like it, is put in the Bill there is a very real worry that the number of people able to access free prescriptions by ticking the back of the prescription form will be reduced. There is of course the cumbersome and intrusive NHS low income scheme route, but that has been subject to long-standing criticism for failing to meet patients’ needs. The Health Select Committee in another place in its recent report on NHS charges called for better cross-departmental working to reduce the extent to which patients have to complete the 16-page HC1 form to receive help with prescription costs via the low income scheme, and recommended that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health work together to extend health-charge exemptions to those on means-tested benefits so that the low income scheme can be abolished. By making all low income ESA claimants exempt from prescription charges, the Government would also avoid carrying over into the new ESA regime the unfairness contained within the existing incapacity benefit system. Currently, claimants with sufficient national insurance records receive contribution-based IB, which makes them ineligible for exemption from prescription charges. However, contribution-based IB and income support with a disability premium are paid at the same rate. Therefore, current rules on prescription exemptions treat people being paid identical amounts of benefit differently and disadvantage those who have previously worked. I understand that the Department of Health is considering allowing ESA claimants to access free prescriptions without the need for a separate claim via the low income scheme. It would be very helpful if the Minister could say something about that, and give details of any discussions on the issue that she has had with her colleagues in the Department of Health. I beg to move.