Welfare Reform Bill

My view is and has always been that we are dealing with sanctions for violent conduct—in other words, punishment for behaviour that I expect all noble Lords would deplore and agree is deserving of sanctions. I hope we can get an assurance from the Minister that new Section 20C on page 28 of the Bill will offer protection from violence to all those involved in delivering the welfare system. That includes everyone from Jobcentre Plus office workers to employees of the organisations who have contracted to run the scheme and members of the subcontractor’s staff. The threat of violence against anyone who is helping to administer welfare schemes is entirely unacceptable. I trust that the Minister would agree with that. I therefore believe that sanctions are necessary. However, they should not be—and must not be seen to be—arbitrary. A warning letter which set out details of why sanctions are being applied would be a useful way of explaining to a claimant why his own conduct is responsible for his predicament. Perhaps it will be a salutary warning. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that sanctions should not be imposed on claimants before they have had adequate warning that it is about to happen. Perhaps the best way is in the form of a letter. Other methods, such as telephone or e-mail, might also be helpful. Indeed, for people with a mental illness, we have already had the promise that sanctions will not be upheld without a face-to-face interview. I had been planning, however, to read out an example of how not to do it in a letter—a letter from the DWP to the daughter of a deceased pensioner which was so threatening in its tone that it ended up in Parliament, in my hands. I was so horrified by it that I sent it to the Minister, who I believe forwarded it to the Pension Agency. Alas, I made the crucial error of sending the original to the Minister without keeping a copy for myself, so I am unable to discomfit your Lordships by reading it out. Suffice it to say that it did not arouse feelings of sympathy for the department, which was trying to reclaim the amount of state pension that had mistakenly been paid out after the pensioner’s death. Incidentally, I have yet to hear a response to it, which surprises me as I sent it to the Minister well over a month ago. I hope that when I finally get a response from the Pension Agency I will be able to forward it to the Minister, because I am trying to get a response to the tone of the letter from him rather than the agency which sent the letter in the first place.