Welfare Reform Bill

Yes—she did not score any points. I would like to mention a small, recent study done by Citizens Advice and presented to the Select Committee looking into the personal independence payment proposals last week. It reviewed 37 reports. The claimants went through the report with the CAB adviser, looking mainly at the section where the healthcare professional is meant to record the claimant's account of the impact of their impairment or health condition on their life. Sixteen of the 37 were reported to have a very substantial level of inaccuracy. The suggestion is that if information from the claimant's own healthcare professionals had been involved, the accuracy of those assessment reports would surely have been better. In another recent report commissioned by DWP, healthcare professionals working for Atos were interviewed and agreed that the provision of medical information from a claimant's own doctor is rather helpful in completing their own assessment. There are many other examples I could give. An applicant with a bipolar disorder might attend an assessment while in high and confident mood, disguising from the assessor the true nature of their condition; for example, their behaviour and state of mind when depressed. A doctor who had met the patient on several occasions would have a better understanding of the severity of the condition and would be able to provide the assessing staff with an informed medical history to allow them to make a more accurate judgment. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is a straightforward request for a small but important change to be made to the current process and is likely to have better success all round and to enable the conditions to be realistic. The other amendments to which I am going to speak are about sanctions: Amendments 51FA, 71G, 71H, 71K, 71L and 76B. They are basically about the need for Jobcentre Plus staff to consider whether a health condition or impairment had an impact on the candidate's failure to comply and, as such, should be seen as good cause. The policy intent to consider good cause before imposing a sanction is not in doubt, but the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that if a sanction is being considered, there is an obligation on the part of the official actively to consider whether any health condition or impairment had an impact on the failure to comply. The number of claimants being found fit to work despite having considerable health impairments is thought to be higher than it should be. The recent changes to the descriptors for the work capability assessment may still fail to recognise the limitations that severe health conditions, including mental health conditions, can impose on an individual's ability to search for a job. As such, they should bear some of the responsibility for the current situation. This concern must be taken into account, otherwise many sick and disabled people will find themselves being sanctioned and risk losing benefits because they have not been able to comply with the conditions they must meet to continue receiving benefits. Claimants with long-term mental health problems are often assessed without due consideration being given to the effect their condition has on their ability to perform in assessment. This not only sometimes leads to an inaccurate assessment, but might affect the morale of the claimant and damage their enthusiasm about the entire returning-to-work process. I do not think it is appreciated how difficult it can be for some people even to attend an interview at a job centre. I am aware of a case of a young woman suffering from agoraphobia and depression who was on the waiting list for therapy. Her condition left her unable to leave her home to see friends, work or even get out. On the day of her appointment her mother, who would normally accompany her, had to go out. The young woman was too anxious to call the job centre to let them know she could not come and, despite her mother's later explanation, the adviser refused to accept that it was good cause and insisted that the young woman should have attended the interview alone. I think the Secretary of State must specifically address and demonstrate that he has addressed whether a health condition was in part responsible for a failure to comply, such as in the case of the young woman I have just mentioned, before applying sanctions. I trust that the Minister will see the wisdom behind these amendments. I beg to move.