Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 6: 6: Clause 2 , page 3, line 4, at end insert ““, or ( ) he is undergoing or recovering from treatment for a serious or life-threatening illness or is terminally ill as prescribed through regulations.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been discussed in the House before and I am retabling it to follow up on a point which I do not believe the Minister has as yet sufficiently addressed. In Committee, he said that, "““we have made provision for a limited group of people, including those who are terminally ill and people undergoing parenteral chemotherapy for cancer, to be treated as having limited capacity for work-related activity””.—[Official Report, 20/2/07; col. GC 35.]" However, the question I had asked previously was whether the Government had any intention of ever expanding those two categories to include other cancer patients taking different courses of treatment, or any other people undergoing treatment of an equivalent severity. I hope that the Minister can answer that now. There is no evidence that oral chemotherapy has less debilitating side effects than intravenous treatment. I checked that with a Member of your Lordships’ House from the medical profession who advised me: "““There is no evidence that oral chemotherapy is less punishing than intravenous and indeed there is some evidence about to be published that some regimes can be easier, but they are not available outside trials as yet in bowel cancer””." Macmillan Cancer Support, in particular, is very concerned that the draft guidance that we have seen makes no mention of the limitations that cancer treatment can impose on patients, especially when appearing for work-focused interviews, which will be compulsory for many cancer patients. If the Minister cannot give us reassurances on moving all cancer patients into the support group, can he at least confirm that regulations will include guidance that assessments, interviews and activities that are subject to conditionality can be postponed for reasons relating to the claimant’s treatment or condition? Currently, it appears that claimants cannot postpone a work-focused assessment unless they can show it would not be helpful or appropriate. Can the noble Lord confirm that this covers the claimant who is feeling too unwell or fatigued to appear for interview? We do not live on the Continent, where you are presumed guilty until you have proved your innocence. In this country you are presumed innocent until you are proved guilty. Does the Minister not therefore feel that the guidance should make specific allowance for claimants to postpone an interview rather than having to go through the rigmarole of being threatened with sanctions and essentially having to prove their innocence? Guidance on all the other aspects of ESA assessment and expectations are similarly silent on the subject of what cancer patients can be limited by. For example, fatigue and low immunity are common side effects, but they are not mentioned anywhere as a consideration on whether a claimant is capable of undertaking work-related activity. Does the Minister expect most cancer patients to be moved into the support group by the current assessment? If not, can he confirm that guidance will ensure that personal advisers will be fully aware of how debilitating cancer treatment can be? I beg to move.