Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, as part of the progression-to-work pathfinders, parents with younger children and those claiming employment and support allowance will be expected to undertake work-related activity that will be discussed and agreed with a personal adviser. During this joint process, the adviser will encourage parents to think about their aspirations, identify the strengths upon which they can build and agree steps that move them towards their goals and eventually into sustained employment. However, I believe that we need to maintain the ability to direct a person to an activity if, after receiving this support, opportunity and guidance, claimants do not engage with this process, especially if it has been identified as essential in helping them prepare for paid work. Amendment 88 removes the power to direct a claimant of employment and support allowance to a specific work-related activity. Advisers will always encourage, persuade and support people into activity they feel is necessary before considering requiring someone to undertake a particular activity. However, there is a strong case for stepping up conditionality as part of the action planning process where someone consistently fails to engage effectively with the personalised support regime. Our evidence shows that conditionality, through mandatory work-focused interviews, is successful in helping claimants with health conditions return to work. Pathways to work increase by 25 per cent the likelihood of a new customer being employed 18 months after starting their claim. However, we want to go further. In the current economic climate, it is even more important that individuals make full use of the support available to them to address their barriers to work. That is why, in line with Gregg’s recommendations, we want to give advisers this power to require claimants to undertake specific activities where appropriate. For example, two situations in which we believe that an adviser should be able to require someone to undertake a specific activity are where a claimant is carrying out work-related activity, but has a significant barrier to work which they have been encouraged to address but has failed to do so, or where a claimant has consistently failed to meet their general work-related activity requirement without good cause. The specific circumstances will be set out in regulations and, where met, claimants could be directed into any activity, subject to certain safeguards, which helped them to move closer to work. When advisers issue any direction, they will consider their previous discussions with the customer, any external advice and, most importantly, the individual circumstances of that parent. This means that any direction given will be suitable and achievable for the person concerned at the time. I reassure your Lordships that directions will not be used to require an employment and support allowance claimant or parent to apply for or take up a specific job. We have also made it clear that no employment and support allowance claimant will be required to undergo medical treatment under this provision. The power is necessary to ensure that advisers have the tools available to require everyone to undertake some activity to address their barriers to work. Although we have a firm belief that a collaborative approach with claimants should be the norm, it is necessary to be able to act where a customer is undermining the rationale of the support that we are offering. On Amendments 52 and 53, I stress again that we shall issue a direction only after every other possible avenue has been explored. If it is necessary to issue a direction, we want it to apply to one specific activity to enable the individual to concentrate on the main barriers that affect them. If we directed them to undertake multiple activities, it may cause confusion or be inappropriate for the individual involved, especially if they have any significant barriers such as learning difficulties or if their family circumstances are chaotic. Directing them to multiple activities in such circumstances would be unacceptable and monitoring compliance difficult. Instead, we want a personal adviser to be able clearly to articulate the activity that will help address the main barriers to an individual entering work, so that the parent is in no doubt about what they are required to do. Amendment 59 would remove the ability of personal advisers to backdate their decision to revoke or reconsider a work-related activity contained within a direction. The ability to revoke or reconsider an action that a parent has been directed to undertake does not unfairly penalise them or lead to unnecessary sanctions. This is especially important where they are finding difficulty in undertaking a particular activity; for example, if there has been a change in their circumstances, or an event in their life, which means that it is no longer appropriate for them to undertake that direction at that time. We want to retain flexibility also so that an adviser can backdate a direction, where this would be in the parent’s interests. For example, an individual may not have carried out the activity specified but carried out some other activity which the adviser may deem acceptable. By backdating the direction, we would also avoid any consideration of penalising the individual for the period between the issue of the original direction and the issue of the redirection. I hope that those explanations and assurances will satisfy the noble Lord, but he will doubtless press me again if they do not.