Welfare Reform Bill

I thank noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to respond to these important questions and I hope to give a reassurance that our intentions in the Bill do not bear out their fears. First, I should like to address the type of requirement that Clause 12 allows us to impose. The definition of work-related activity set out in subsection (7) permits a wide range of activities to count as work related. It outlines clearly that work-related activity can include anything that will help the customer to obtain or retain work. The Bill simply does not allow us to ask a customer to undertake a specific activity, or even one activity out of a wider series of options. There is no question of a customer being required to undertake any specific activity, be it a condition management programme or anything else. I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. As we have set out in the supporting material provided to noble Lords, we intend that a requirement under Clause 12 would be to undertake some work-related activity over a set number of weeks. What activity customers choose to undertake to meet the subsection (7) definition will be their decision, with the personal adviser providing information and advice to support their choice. The Government will be responsible for providing sufficient help and support to allow customers to meet their work-related activity requirement, and we will look to base that provision on what is available and works in Pathways to Work areas. If customers decide to undertake other activities not provided by us, such as applying directly for jobs or undertaking training through the Learning and Skills Council, or even voluntary work as has been discussed, those activities could of course meet the subsection (7) definition. Our intention is to help customers to undertake activities that will help them overcome their barriers to work and potentially, in time, to enter work. The issue of helping customers through requiring them to undertake work-related activities is entirely separate from the issue raised in Amendment No. 82 in relation to Clause 17. The effect of this amendment would be to remove from the Bill the power to disqualify a customer from receiving ESA or treat customers as not having limited capability for work, and therefore not be entitled to benefit, for periods of up to six weeks where they continue to have limited capability for work as a result of failure to follow medical advice without good cause. If they satisfy the qualifying criteria, customers have a right to benefit. But that right comes with a corresponding responsibility to behave appropriately, the issue that we are discussing now. Clause 17 sets out powers for customers to be disqualified or treated as having limited capability for work for a limited period of up to six weeks if they do not fulfil that responsibility. The regulations to be made under Clause 17 will set out the behaviours that would be expected of customers in return for their benefit. These are similar to those already required under the existing incapacity benefit regulations. The powers around medical advice will be used only if a customer purposely—that is an important word—and without good cause fails to follow medical advice and, as a result, has limited capability for work. The purpose of the clause is to safeguard the benefit system against people who seek to abuse it. It is not an attempt to force people into accepting medical treatment which they do not wish to undergo for a genuine reason such as, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, the fear or experience of unacceptable side effects. A series of safeguards will be in place to ensure that the power is not misapplied to any customers. As now, the power will not require people to undergo invasive medical treatment such as vaccinations, inoculations or surgery. Provisions made under the clause will not affect people who enter a condition management programme as part of an action plan with a personal adviser. I know that a number of organisations have expressed concern about people with mental health difficulties. I assure the Committee that adequate training for our staff and safeguards will be put in place which will mean that customers will always be given an opportunity to explain their actions before any disqualification occurs. An example of where it might be appropriate to disqualify a customer under this provision is a person with back pain who refuses, without good cause, a recommended regime of physiotherapy to speed up recovery to such an extent that they would no longer have limited capability for work. The benefit system should not pick up the bill for those who act in a wholly unreasonable manner. This type of provision has been a feature of the benefit system for many decades. It has previously been referred to as ““medical treatment”” rather than ““medical advice””, but this change in wording is intended merely to update the language, not change the meaning. It has been very rarely used and we do not anticipate that it will be used often in the future. However, it is important to ensure that the system is not abused. There is no evidence to show that the safeguards in place have failed to protect the needs of the most vulnerable in the past, and similar safeguards will apply. Customers who are disqualified will also have the right of appeal to an independent appeals tribunal. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised medication, which I have already touched on, and asked what safeguards will be available to customers under Clause 17. Perhaps I may labour the point: the safeguards for the customer, either through the Bill or capable of being specified in regulations, include the flexibility of the regulation-making power. Through that flexibility, we can prescribe the situations and circumstances under which disqualification can be used. The regulations made under this clause will have to be capable of complying with the Human Rights Act. For there to be a failure to follow medical advice without good cause and disqualification to be considered, the advice must be given by a doctor or other relevant healthcare professional. The advice, if followed, must, in the opinion of that doctor or healthcare professional, be likely to remove the limitations on the capability for work which the person concerned has been experiencing. As I have already said, customers will have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal against any decision to disqualify them from benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about jobseeker’s allowance and how a sanction under Clause 17 would affect a person’s benefit. I will come back to him on that when I have had time to research a full answer. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.