Welfare Reform Bill

This amendment and the ones grouped with it are about the importance of Jobcentre Plus staff making sure that they have taken enough steps to ensure that claimants under this part of the Bill—that is, lone parents in the progression-to-work group and the partners of certain claimants who are on JSA or ESA and in the progression-to-work group—are contacted before any sanctions can be applied following a claimant’s failure to attend work-related activity. What are "reasonable attempts"? In my view, reasonable attempts to contact a person should not just be by automated letter which could easily not be understood to be specifically about a claimant’s case, or it could be delayed or lost where, for example, the post for various flats is not sorted out properly. It should be followed up with at least one telephone call. The Minister may say that this is done now, but are we sure that it happens in every case? Is it written down anywhere in guidance as a requirement? This would also ensure that the recipient properly understands what is happening—something that I have been concerned about for some time, given the relatively large number of sanctions that are imposed and on which my noble friend gave a rather alarming figure last week. I wonder what language Jobcentre Plus staff use. I hope that they use words other than "sanction" and "conditionality", and that they manage to communicate that if claimants do not take certain steps, their benefit will be reduced. The grouped amendment states that the prescribed period before a sanction is applied should be 10 and not five days. Five days is a very short time. For a start, it does not take into account the vagaries of the postal system. Could the five-day period straddle a weekend? That is the practical side of the issue, but even more important is the psychological side. For anyone suffering from, for example, an episode of clinical depression or a flare-up of another mental problem, it is a hopelessly short time in which to respond. A huge number of people in all benefit groups suffer from mild or moderate mental illness and they simply cannot open letters for days on end. In the wake of some tragic suicides in the past, I gather that Jobcentre Plus ensures that vulnerable people with mental health problems on incapacity benefit are spoken to face to face before ultimate sanctions are imposed. Will that be the case with the new and tougher regime for those in the progression-to-work group? After all, some of them will be on ESA, albeit the employment side of ESA. Giving claimants at least an additional week, combined with reasonable but persistent attempts by Jobcentre Plus staff to make contact, would be an important safeguard against the very serious risk of a vulnerable and poor person, perhaps with a child, receiving a sanction unfairly. I beg to move.