Welfare Reform Bill

Although we cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, as it stands, I can reassure her that what she seeks is effectively what should happen. One of the underlying principles of assessment of limited capability for work-related activity is to base the assessment on the severity of functional effects that a person experiences as a result of his condition, and not on the condition itself. Different people may have different levels of functional limitation arising from the same disabling condition. The 46 descriptors in the schedule to the draft regulations under Clause 9, which the Committee has seen, define limited capability for work-related activity in a way which allows a fair and consistent assessment to be made. However, we have taken powers in the Bill to treat certain categories of people as having limited capability for work even if they do not satisfy any of the 46 descriptors. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, touched on patients undergoing cancer treatment. People who are terminally ill or who are undergoing parenteral chemotherapy for cancer will be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity. The noble Lord pressed me on when the work-related or support group level of payment would be due. As we discussed on the previous Committee day, perhaps inadequately, the assessment period for those people will effectively be waived. Therefore, it will be due at the start of their entitlement, which I think we untangled last time as being essentially the date of the claim unless there is entitlement to backdating. So they will not have to wait until the end of the 13-week period. But on the broader issue of whether we would broaden the categories of people with cancer whom we would automatically include in the support group, the answer is the same as we gave last time. We do not believe that it is right to do that. We have to look at the impact on individuals and how it affects their functional activity. On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we think that the circumstances she described may well fit into the support group. There is nothing to stop people in a support group volunteering for the support that is available. It may be appropriate that with support from advocates and so on, they are encouraged to do so. That seems to be a way forward. Whether they go into a support group will not be determined by the description of their medical condition, but by its functional effects on them. We have also made provision in Regulation 3(2)(c) of the draft regulations under Clause 9 for a person to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if, by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if he were found not to have limited capability for work. That provision will ensure that any person who has a mental health condition of a nature or severity that would result in a substantial risk of harm to their health or to that of any other person by their participation in work-related activity will be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity even if they do not satisfy any of the 46 descriptors. The amendment is therefore unnecessary to accommodate individuals with severe mental health problems who are treated under the Mental Health Act 1983. If they have been treated under that Act, they should meet one of the 46 descriptors used to identify those who have limited capability for work-related activity. If for any reason they did not meet any of those descriptors, we would expect that they would demonstrate that there would be a substantial risk to their health or to that of another person if they were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity. In that case, they would be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will feel able not to press her amendment.