Welfare Reform Bill

The amendment would ensure that all Jobcentre Plus staff and contracted provider staff involved in supporting claimants into employment are adequately trained to recognise and meet the multiple needs of those with particular barriers to work. Three of the biggest themes of this Grand Committee have been: first, the flexibility needed for the treatment of lone parents with very young children; secondly, real concern about the treatment of those with severe but fluctuating mental health problems; and, thirdly, the importance of Jobcentre Plus staff and contracted staff being adequately trained to meet the needs of an even wider pool of claimants than ever. How Jobcentre Plus and contracted staff deal with claimants will be crucial as to whether the reforms in this Bill will work in the way that they should. Discussions in the past few weeks in Grand Committee have demonstrated that there is, I regret to say, very little confidence that there is adequate training in place for staff having to meet the needs of the greater number of claimants with complex mental health needs in particular. We had a long debate on, I think, day three of Grand Committee about whether the "work for your benefit" scheme should not be rolled out unless the Secretary of State was satisfied that jobcentres around the country were ready enough to manage it. But that amendment concerned only Clause 1. I think the Minister indicated that he would deal in more detail with training staff on mental health and other issues when we reached later amendments, and I hope that he was thinking of this amendment. I expect he will say that claimants on the employment side of the ESA will already have had a work-related health assessment and that the JCP personal adviser or disability employment adviser will have that assessment on a claimant’s file, whereby the staff can see if there is, for example, a severe but fluctuating mental health condition that would show that a claimant may need sensitive handling. This is not always happening. The fear of many people who work in the mental health field is that vulnerable claimants who in the past would have been on incapacity benefit will, if they are new claimants, now be on the employment rather than the support side of the ESA and that JCP staff and private-sector staff may not have been sufficiently trained to deal with all the various mental health conditions that they are likely to come across. One MIND survey respondent said: ""Advisers, employers and work colleagues still lack understanding of mental health issues—stigma is alive and kicking. Just because my disability is not visible it’s just assumed I was workshy"." There is, of course, also a strong likelihood that some long-term claimants of the JSA will fall into depression that could be mild or severe, and therefore it is not just ESA claimants with existing mental-health conditions that employment advisers should be aware of, but potentially all longer-term claimants. Will all employment staff, either in JCP or in outsourced companies, be sufficiently aware of the symptoms of undiagnosed clinical depression or of another condition common among ex-military personnel—post-traumatic stress disorder? I received one case study about a woman with this condition and with mobility problems. She was told that she must attend at very short notice a two-day course 30 miles from her home called Activate. The outsourced provider had not received any medical information from JCP because of "system problems". It was not until she had an advocate from her local advocacy service that her case was finally postponed until the provider had her medical assessment. It is not just Members of the Grand Committee who have expressed concern about the training of JCP and contracted-out staff. The importance of sufficiently trained staff was highlighted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 14th report when it stated: ""The Bill expressly provides that any direction must be reasonable ‘having regard to the person's circumstances’. It is unclear whether advisers will have the tools necessary to assess an individual's circumstances effectively enough to know when a particular activity is appropriate or not. If work-related requirements place an onerous burden on individuals who are not able to meet them as a result of their mental or physical disabilities, or which may exacerbate their health difficulties, they may lead to an increased risk of a breach of that individual's right to respect for their private life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, without discrimination".""The DWP’s own research suggests that even within "Pathways" regimes, personal advisers admit lacking knowledge and understanding of mental health issues. It states:"""Mental health issues (including depression, suicide and self harm) ... were particular areas (Incapacity benefit personal advisers (IBPAs)) reported having difficulties with. IBPAs did not feel their initial training had prepared them for working with these kinds of customers"." Further evidence this year suggests that advisers should improve their knowledge of claimants’ mental health conditions. For example, the sedating effects of medication should be considered, which might make an early-morning start almost impossible for certain claimants. That could in turn lead to a sanction for non-attendance on a community work programme. Another reported problem has been inappropriate referrals to join condition management programmes for the wrong condition. DWP research into the incapacity benefit personal adviser role highlighted the key skills needed for the job, which include communication skills, having a non-judgmental attitude, and having patience and empathy, which is all very good. Pathways-to-work personal advisers are provided with three months' training before beginning to work with claimants in the pilot phase of the particular programme, but many still recognised that they needed more training in what was called more challenging health conditions, including mental health problems. Evidence from Citizens Advice also highlights a problem. It states that one year on from the introduction of JCP’s Accessing Jobcentre Customer Services—ACJS— project, bureaux continue to report that vulnerable clients are not always directed to support that meets their needs. Telephone claims are encouraged, but claimants who need more help ought to be picked up when they make contact with a JCP office. Everyone recognises the extra pressure that JCP offices are under with the rapid rise in unemployment, but Citizens Advice evidence suggests that local staff are often unable to identify claimants who need extra support and for whom going into the office is the best way that they can be assisted. The last thing anyone wants is for vulnerable claimants to be sanctioned inappropriately, as many of us have said already during Grand Committee. Not only would that be bad for claimants, it could be very costly in terms of how the pieces are picked up. Nor are we asking for those with mental health conditions to be parked in the non-sanctionable support group of ESA so that they will not get any help in preparing for or getting work. We are simply asking for competencies for employment advisers, whether in Jobcentre Plus or in outsourced companies, to be set by the Secretary of State to ensure that all such staff are able to work appropriately with claimants with the full range of mental health problems and other disabilities. Finally, we strongly recommend involving individuals with the full range of disabilities in designing and delivering this training, as that has been found to be highly effective in improving understanding. I beg to move.