I am going to have to put my slightly provocative hat on. It occurs to me that the worse the level of training, the greater the level of appeals, which I think is the main thought behind the amendment proposed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I make no apology for opening my few remarks on the noble Countess’s amendment by saying that it is right that if we are going to have individual action plans, that we must make sure that they take account of the individual. As the noble Countess has said, if a person suffers from a fluctuating condition, it will have a very different impact on their ability to undertake that obligation of work-related activity than if they had no condition at all, or different even from someone who suffers from a consistent and predictable condition.
If the plans are to be as individually tailored, as the Minister says, we must assume that such fluctuating symptoms will be taken into account. But the basic question is how. Who will take this into account? We heard a horrifying story from the fairly long letter which the noble Countess read out. It is clear that the individual or individuals conducting the computerised assessments that we learnt about during our discussions of the new employment and support allowance simply were not up to the job. That may not be entirely their fault. It may be that the individual in question was more able at that moment to carry out the individual tests that are required than she would be if she went home.
Again, I have to declare an interest in that I have a son-in-law with severe ME. He finds that at moments he is able to do quite normal things. But then, a few hours later, he will collapse for another two, three, four or five days. If you have an assessment in a good period, it is extremely difficult—this was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashfar—to come to a realistic conclusion of what may happen in the rest of the week or month. How you train people to have proper observation or realisation of that fact is beyond me. But there must be better brains than mine around the system who could get to the bottom of it. Until we do, all hope for the people whom the noble Countess has been talking about is lost.
Amendment 90 is the significant one in this group, referring to the training of the provider to recognise symptoms, which is what I have been trying to explain in a nutshell. I expect that we shall have a good deal more to say on this matter as there are more amendments on the horizon dealing with it. The training of staff who will operate these schemes is the key. Putting on my pseudo-civil servant hat, I am afraid that this amendment is probably in the wrong part of the Bill. It is so fundamental that it should be there well before we get to the matter of directions. The Minister will probably have something to say about that. I certainly understand all the points that have been made this afternoon. I wish that I had a golden rod to solve them, but I am afraid that I have not.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c312-3GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:30:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568424
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568424
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568424