Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s objective of achieving an 80 per cent employment rate for people of working age. I worked on a major national campaign on unemployment in the early 1980s, when we had 3 million people out of work. I remain as committed as ever to employment as the way to well-being and the general improvement of people’s lives. In the past, we have assumed that various groups of disabled people will inevitably spend their lives dependent on benefits. This must be appalling for their sense of self-worth and well-being. We know there are substantial numbers of long-term benefit claimants who would dearly like to work, given the necessary support. To achieve this we need a culture change. In general, I support the rights and responsibilities agenda reflected in this legislation. Yet I am deeply worried about the likely consequences of this Bill as it stands for many claimants. People with mental health problems—your Lordships will not be surprised I mention them—are the largest single group of people dependent on incapacity benefit or ESA. I focus my comments on this group, though many of them would apply to other groups, particularly those with fluctuating conditions. Pathways to Work is the means by which people are migrated off incapacity benefit or ESA and helped into work—as all Members of the House now know. The Government have claimed success for Pathways to Work based upon the evaluation of the pilots, which showed an increase in the likelihood of being able to get back to work for people with physical health problems. Yet the main 2008 report by Richard Dorsett showed that this did not apply to those with mental health problems. Reports by Bewley and others show some success for those with mental health problems but the evidence is at least inconsistent. We need to know what kind of support is needed for this group if many of them are to make a successful transition into work. What was it about the subjects in the Bewley studies which accounted for their better outcomes than the more significant study by Dorsett? We have referred to staffing and staff training on previous occasions. These will be of absolutely critical importance and could make the difference between a quite successful outcome from this Bill and a complete disaster. I understand that there will be fewer resources available in the rollout than were available for the pilots and that training for personal advisers will include at most one day on mental health. Is that correct? I share the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ concerns about the feasibility for this group of the requirement to undertake work-related activity, particularly with the low staffing levels and inadequate training which I fear will be the order of the day. Similar concerns apply to work capability assessments and the requirement to attend a work-focused interview. I feel I am just repeating my own statements but I raised these problems in relation to the 2007 Act and they have not yet been adequately addressed. It is not appropriate to sanction someone who is lying deeply depressed and who is barely aware of the outside world for failing to comply with a requirement, unless there are incredibly strong safeguards. Such a claimant may not have opened a letter warning them of the threat to their benefit. He or she may well not pick up the phone to explain their position. Personal contact by a well-trained personal adviser will be essential if unwarranted hardship is to be avoided. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me on that. As the Minister will know, individual placement and support schemes have been shown to be effective in North America and in six European countries. I endorse the view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which believes that the main elements of IPS schemes should be adapted to the Pathways schemes for people with mental health problems. Essentially, these schemes recognise that if an employee has mental health problems, not only the employee but the employer or manager will need support. Does the Minister plan to introduce individual placement and support schemes throughout the country in the context of the new Bill? I was not going to mention the linking rules, but the Minister will not be surprised that I do. Where people have come off incapacity benefit or ESA and have gone into work and then found that they cannot continue, the linking rules enable them to restore their benefits within a two-year period with relatively less bureaucracy. Again, the linking rules still have too much bureaucracy and will not work for people who have mental health problems. One has to recognise that people with these problems simply cannot deal with all the little processes involved in applying for a form, getting it through the post, opening the letter, filling in the form, finding an envelope, going shopping, buying a stamp, et cetera. It is a remarkably complex set of processes, even though to the average person it is quite straightforward. Could a sunrise clause be used to test out a simple restoration of benefit on the basis of a psychiatrist’s telephone call or email? I realise this was not done before from a fear of abuse. If one piloted it, my hunch is that the level of abuse would be relatively small and the benefit could be considerable. Many organisations have expressed concerns about the drugs issue, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the BMA, Release, Liberty and Drugscope. As others have mentioned, Clause 9 and Schedule 3 contain provisions to increase conditionality on claimants dependent on drugs. To offer help to this excluded group would be welcome. Yet the Government are being unrealistic if they see drug treatment plans as a quick fix. As those of us involved in this sort of work all know, rehabilitation takes years. A very different approach would be needed from that given in the Bill. One of the problems here is the incongruity between the emphasis in this Bill on drug dependency as a public health problem involving treatment and the emphasis in the Home Office on the idea that these people are criminals. The requirement to declare drug use to the authorities is a particular problem because of this inconsistency in policy across government departments. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss a way forward with Ministers from the two departments. The Release organisation and others argue, despite assurances from the DWP, that the sanction of drug testing may be in breach of Article 8, the right to privacy, of the ECHR. Sharing information held by the police, the probation service and others is probably in breach of Article 8, too. Also I doubt the efficacy of introducing compulsion in relation to rehabilitation programmes. A number of us heard a cogent presentation by an ex-drug-user explaining the fundamental truth on this issue. Drug misusers have to reach a point at which they are ready to kick the habit. Only then can they be successfully helped. The risk under these conditions and threats is that people will not engage with the benefits system, they will live in even greater poverty and exclusion, and there will be an increased potential for criminal activity in order to survive. On payment by results, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the Royal College of Psychiatrists drew the Government’s attention to the report produced by Anu Rangarajan and others which suggests that payment-by-results systems do not work for those who are hardest to place in work. I know that the Government announced in the White Paper a number of ways to deal with the problems of hard-to-place clients, but I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that all the Rangarajan recommendations are being implemented. Again, if not, contracting-out and payment by results could have really quite appalling consequences. In relation to single parents with children aged three to seven, if the policy is implemented sensitively it could enhance a sense of well-being in some single parents. The prospect of greater independence and contact with the world of work could be very beneficial. However, we will need to explore many of these issues in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, alluded most eloquently to some of them. Indeed, I put on the record that I strongly agree with all the points made by the noble Baroness, but I will not repeat them. Finally, I express my warm welcome for the proposal to introduce the joint registration of the children of unmarried parents. This is an important step towards more equal recognition of both parents. There will be a small number of cases where this is undesirable for the child, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that such cases will be taken into account. However, the principle of equality between parents in the Bill should, if possible, be retained. In conclusion, this Bill is full of potential for benefits to individuals and certainly to the taxpayer, but it is also full of dangers for vulnerable claimants. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these issues.