Welfare Reform Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, will be glad to hear that this is an occasion when I will not be a bit of grit in the ointment. I support the theory of these amendments. Whether it is necessary to have them in the Bill, the Minister will no doubt explain in great detail. But it is clear, not least from the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that people who suffer from learning difficulties will have particular and unsurprising difficulties in accessing the job market. I was absolutely horrified to hear about the experience of Katie, who was exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As an employer, I have to accept that an employer would normally be extremely cautious in considering the employment of someone with learning disabilities. Noble Lords should not get me wrong because my wife and I have for some time employed an individual—in horticulture, as it happens—with learning disabilities. Both he and we cope with the situation very well. But I can imagine other employers and other people with learning disabilities who would not gel anything like as well. In this day and age, I am not sure what interests one should declare. Some time ago I was asked to be a trustee of Thrive, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has mentioned. I also have a sister who is a trained psychological therapist and is studying animal therapy, with particular reference to horses, which, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, often has very desirable effects on those with learning disabilities. I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with the view expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken that particular attention will have to be paid to people with learning difficulties if these schemes are to be successful in getting them back to work or into work for the first time. I expect—although I am, as usual, prepared to be proved wrong—that the Minister will agree with all of this and assuage noble Lords by saying that this will all be taken care of under the individually tailored action plans. Of course, we are not allowed to call them that; they are just action plans. This is why the key amendment in the group—as with a similar set of amendments tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which are shortly to be debated—is the one that refers to precisely what training will be provided to jobcentre staff to enable them to draw up action plans addressing the needs of participants with learning difficulties. We have not yet explored the activities of the contractor in all this. My guess, and hope, is that, to a great extent, the prime mover—the contractor’s personal adviser, if you like—will draw these things up. They will be approved by the jobcentre personal adviser. Of course, directions, sanctions and so on have to work in that way: they will be suggested by the contractor, and the more normal agents of the Secretary of State then actually impose them. I would also be obliged if the Minister gave us the most up-to-date statistics—or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has them—indicating what percentage of those out of work have been diagnosed with learning difficulties so that we have a clear grasp of the scale of the problem. At the beginning of my speech, I indicated sympathy but expressed doubt that it is necessary to have these amendments in the Bill. I expressed doubt because I note that at the top of page 7—gosh, we are moving fast today—it says: ""A direction … must be reasonable, having regard to the person’s circumstances"." Of course, a "person’s circumstances" would include any disability, including a learning disability. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, has spoken of the paucity of English among certain of the individuals we are talking about. As usual, I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but that is not to say that I disapprove of the actions taken by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, this afternoon.