Welfare Reform Bill

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that it applies not only to ESA claimants with mental health problems but also to those who might be claiming other benefits. I am not entirely clear about it, although perhaps I should be. I am concerned that anyone with a mental health problem, for exactly the reasons the noble Baroness indicated, needs to be seen face to face. Indeed, I am grateful to the Minister for making that commitment; we now need to clarify the breadth of it. I was going to raise a further point in relation to this: does the Minister think it would be helpful if, under the Bill but not on its face, he could make a commitment that attempts would be made to work with workers who are in any way involved with those who have mental health problems? A lot of these people have social workers, CPNs and others working with them, so if the DWP personal adviser cannot make contact, it is likely that one of these other workers could do so. They could agree to phone someone and have a conversation. Although I understand that it would not be reasonable to put this kind of detail in the Bill, a commitment from the Minister for guidance along these lines could ensure that this aspect of the legislation would operate far more effectively than in the absence of such a provision. We discussed these issues on our second day in Committee and I do not want to prolong the debate except to seek clarity on these two particular issues. Amendment 86 would amend Amendment 85. I set out my reasoning when the Minister and I met with the Bill team. I was saying that people with severe or even moderate mental health problems should probably be in a special employment support allowance group where there is no conditionality but there is voluntary involvement in work-related activities and all sorts of other provisions. We know that this group is keen to get back into work if at all possible, but for many it is a rather distant hope. Conditionality provisions are not necessary for this group. People feel excluded and deprived in many ways and they want to get back into what they see as normal society. That is my basic position, but if it is not possible, surely we have to be realistic and provide a decent amount of time for these people to get themselves together sufficiently at least to be able to pick up the phone. Frankly, five or 10 days are not sufficient. People coming into in-patient units are likely to be in-patients for an average of eight weeks and probably more. It takes weeks for them to evolve from that situation to a position where they can handle the stresses and strains of the benefit system. Twenty days are just about acceptable, but none of this makes sense for those with moderate or severe mental health problems.