Welfare Reform Bill

I think I slightly missed my cue. I apologise. I rise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who gives her apologies to the Committee. My noble friend is unable to be with us due to a commitment in Birmingham today and she asked me to speak. I rise to give notice of our intention to oppose the question that Clause 99 stand part of the Bill. I must express my gratitude to Sue Royston of the CAB service for her help with this contribution. The purpose of this amendment is to remove Clause 99, which requires claimants to apply for a revision before they can appeal. This clause would mean a mandatory extra step in the system, which complicates the process for claimants. The extra step has a strict legal time limit within which the application must be made. This inevitably means that some vulnerable people will lose their right to appeal, having failed to submit their application in good time. It will create extra work and extra expense. The reconsideration process is already in place anyway when someone appeals; the DWP just needs to use it more effectively. What does the proposal mean for the process of challenging a decision? At present someone who receives a decision they disagree with has a month to challenge it. They can either ask the decision-maker to reconsider the decision or they can put in for an appeal. If they appeal, the DWP still has a duty to reconsider the decision. If, after reconsideration, the decision is unchanged, the appeal is passed on to the Tribunals Service automatically. This means that at the start of the process claimants have only one legal time limit to meet if they appeal. If the new proposal set out in Clause 99 is passed, someone who receives a decision they disagree with will have a month from the date of the decision to ask for a reconsideration. Then, when the claimant receives the result of that, they will have only a month from the date of the new decision to submit their appeal. Both of these deadlines will be strict legal time limits and a late reconsideration or appeal will be accepted only if good cause is proven. We all know that good cause is a very tough hurdle and very much a matter of discretion. One can never be sure that the decision is fair. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government regard this change as necessary. In the equality impact assessment published in October, one reason given by the DWP for this proposal is: "““We wish to ensure that as far as is reasonably possible, disputes between claimants and the relevant decision making body regarding social security, child support and certain other decisions are resolved through internal processes””." It makes no sense to suggest that this proposal is to ensure that decisions are resolved through internal processes. The process for doing this is already in place. If a claimant wants to challenge a DLA decision and appeals, time is given to collect evidence and a proper reconsideration of the evidence is made. Where a good cause is presented, the decision is frequently overturned. The taxpayer is saved the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of that appeal. However, in ESA cases, until recently it was very common to send in an appeal one day and get back the reconsideration by return of post refusing to change the decision—the appeal had been forwarded to the Tribunals Service before any evidence could be collected. The reconsideration process has recently improved. However, the improvements are patchy. One CAB in the south-west reported that it had started to see an improvement in the reconsideration process, but ever since the reassessment process started in earnest, it appears that the decision-makers have been overwhelmed and in not a single case where the CAB has helped claimants appeal has the decision been overturned on reconsideration, and yet at tribunal the CAB service has a success rate of 90 per cent. Clearly something is going rather badly wrong. The DWP puts forward one other justification for this measure. It says that some people let their appeal carry on because it takes action to stop it. Again, that is not actually the situation. No one can get to a tribunal without confirming their intent to carry on. Before the tribunal is scheduled, the claimant has 14 days to complete a form called a TAS1. If someone does not complete their TAS1, their appeal will not continue. However, because it is not a legal time limit in the same way as in the proposed plan, sorting out problems is much easier and therefore much less likely to lead to vulnerable people losing their right to appeal. If the issue is DWP concern about nugatory work and writing an appeal submission for people who are going to withdraw, a solution could surely be worked out around delaying writing submissions until a TAS1 is returned. This seems a much more practical solution that achieves what DWP says it is concerned about without the detrimental effects to clients that this proposal will create. What will be the effect of this proposal? It will increase the pressure to speed up the process. While the claimant is appealing, they can claim ESA, but during the revision process, they will not be entitled to receive that benefit. The reconsideration process is therefore likely to be less effective than it should be because the time pressure will discourage claimants from gathering important medical evidence. They want to get on and get hold of their benefit if they can get it, even if the benefit assessment is wrong. It will complicate the process for claimants. Claimants will inevitably be confused about the difference between revisions and appeals and will make inappropriate requests at the wrong time and fail to appeal at the right time. It will cost DWP extra money to implement the change. DWP’s impact assessment points out: "““There would be significant implementation costs for DWP associated with changing the processes for administering affected benefits and payments””." Most important of all, vulnerable claimants will be lost from the system. Advisers all too often see claimants who are no longer able to appeal a decision that they disagree with because they have missed the time limit. Having two strict time limits within the system is likely to result in a considerable increase in vulnerable people being lost to the system. Others may appear less vulnerable and not have, for example, diagnosed mental health problems, but may just be worn down by the process that faces them. In conclusion, if the reconsideration process as it now stands is made effective, claimants will use it because they do not want the stress of going to a tribunal if they can possibly avoid it. It seems unreasonable to suggest that an extra step is needed in order for DWP to do what it should be doing anyway. In a Bill that is meant to be simplifying the system, it is very hard to see the justification for making the system more complex for claimants. I hope that the Minister will agree to look again at the proposal in this clause to see whether there are alternative ways of meeting the Government’s concerns.