Welfare Reform Green Paper

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am grateful, too, for his invitation to discuss the Green Paper next week; I hope I will be able to attend. Despite the predictable spin with which the Statement starts, both the Minister and the Secretary of State must appreciate that it is made against the background of an economy that is going rapidly downhill. Not only are there 1,528,000 unemployed on the Government’s favoured register, there are 909,000 claimants for 606,000 vacancies. We further know—the Government have told us often enough—that 1 million people on incapacity benefit want to work. I am afraid that the figures just do not add up. That said, the Government are right to seek to encourage, not force, those on IB who are able to work to re-enter the employment market where it exists. The question is, how many of these 1 million can realistically be expected to find work? Even though I have not seen the Green Paper, I welcome the thrust of the Statement although I question whether the Government can actually deliver when we do not know whether claimants genuinely expect to be able to return to gainful employment or whether they are just expressing a vague aspiration. Even if the expectation is real, are they able to work? If so, in what jobs, and where? I noted that the highest figures for people on IB are in areas with the lowest opportunity of job availability. The point is that of the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit or any replacement benefit, a proportion will be so incapacitated healthwise that, even if they want to work, no one could realistically expect an employer to take them on. Others will have been out of work so long that, although in theory they want to work, they have lost what I call that ““get up and go”” factor that is so important. Yet others—1.1 million, I believe—of the total caseload are claiming because of mental and behavioural disorders—the Statement mentions that in part—which are so notoriously difficult to treat. What is the answer to that? The Statement hints at sanctions, as there are for those on jobseeker’s allowance, but is reduction of benefit for people who are by definition among the least well off really appropriate? Another suggestion, which has been around for some time, is to have employment advisers in GP surgeries. That is all very well, but we need to encourage people back into work not force them. Your Lordships might feel that all this has nothing to do with today’s Statement, but it does. From the figures that we have been given, roughly a third of new claimants will want to return to work, so what we know of existing claimants is indeed pertinent for the future. The Government ought to be asking themselves—and this being an announcement of a Green Paper rather than a White Paper, their consultees—whether the whole system of six-month statutory sick pay followed by almost automatic transfer to a long-term benefit is the right one. I note that the Statement seems to throw some doubt on that. Most important of all, why is there so little medical intervention? I accept that the GP is the gateway to both benefits. One would hope that a sick note is based on the GP’s assessment of a person’s medical condition, not a need for the latter to get rid of the patient so that he can spend as little time as possible on the case, in order that he—the GP—can meet the Government’s target of an average of seven minutes per patient to spend more time on a more acute medical problem. What about the medical ethics of questioning the doctor’s judgment? The state, as the basic support system for those of our citizens in need, should not allow people who genuinely require our support to lose the social security help that is theirs by right. It is the right of people to seek help from the state in their hour of need. I hope that that is the basic concept of all political parties. But—and it is a big but—claimants have to play their part. After all, with rights go responsibilities. Alas, some of our citizens forget that. It is anathema that some people should be allowed by the system to go on and on claiming when they are capable of at least some work even if it means retraining. Again, I agree with the Government about that. However, there is no doubt that some are allowed to carry on because of the lack and frequency of medical intervention. If, as the Statement says, people are more likely to die or retire after two years on benefit than they are to be re-employed, what is the average length of time before a new claimant sees a doctor? Even more important, how long is it, again on average, before an existing claimant sees a medic to review his claim? Can it really be the three to five years that I have been told about? That must, must change under the new arrangements. I do not expect the Minister to answer all those questions today, but I would be grateful for as many answers as he can give me by letter in due course because they are just as relevant to the new employment and support allowance as they are to the current invalidity benefit. Having said all that, I repeat what I said at the beginning: I welcome the thrust of the Statement, but I have my doubts.