Welfare Reform Bill

Cap that. I support the rationale behind the noble Baroness’s amendments; indeed, as the Committee will note, I have added my name to Amendment 42. They would ensure that the participant was given a fair and reasonable chance to prove himself to have good cause for failing to uphold his duties under the scheme. If he failed to turn up to the work-related activity, the amendments would make certain that all reasonable attempts were made to get in touch with him, and in any case he would have 10 working days, rather than the customary five, to respond. The noble Baroness mentioned evidence from a group that has lobbied on this point. I add for my part that I was impressed by the arguments put forward by the Mental Health Coalition that those suffering from acute mental health problems might not have the wherewithal to pull themselves back into the state of mind where they can make a fully justified response—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The amendments would stretch the period to a full two weeks, which is not a huge amount of time. Given that the penalty for not responding within the stated time frame is the closure of a person’s claim, there are just grounds for extending the period to prevent a person being unfairly penalised for their health condition. It does not really matter whether it is the health condition itself, the postal service or being unable to get through on the telephone to the jobcentre or the contractor that is to blame. Rethink, the mental health charity, circulated to noble Lords the views of one of its members, David, which I shall recount for purposes of illustration: ""Mental illness isn't like being in a wheelchair or having a bad back—it can take from you the capacity to manage your own affairs. It can mean that you can't summon the mental strength to drag yourself out of bed, let alone open and read a letter, digest the implications and then do the sensible thing and pick up the phone and take the action required. I've got bipolar and by definition it's a fluctuating condition—you have ups and downs. In my case the downs last at least 10 days or two weeks. It's quite possible when things are at their worst when I'm down that I just would not have the wherewithal to respond in time to a deadline from a job advisor. It might be five days later—but that would be five days too late"." I realise that the time set in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 is five days, and that the noble Baroness's Amendments 85 and 86 seek to change that too. Perhaps this is an occasion where the refusal to take no for an answer is to be commended. Why have the Government chosen five working days? I presume that they have been pressed on this matter by mental health campaigners, if not others. If that is the case, why has the Minister decided to ignore that advice and press ahead with five days? Are there any convincing and persuasive statistics—it is very unlike me to ask for that; it is normally the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—with which he can blind us which would help us to support the Government's position on this?