Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is always hard—this is a challenge in all legislation—to set out the rules to be followed when not every scenario is identified in the legislation itself.

[Peter Dowd]

The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), has said:

“Sanctions are being applied at a scale unknown since the Second World War and the operation of sanctions on this scale has made for the most significant change in the post-war social security system. Yet the Government”

do not know for sure how much money has been withdrawn. Does the hon. and learned Lady not agree that more of the same process is completely useless?

[Lucy Frazer]

All the evidence suggests that over 90% of people do not go through the sanctions system at all, so the system works for a large number of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be good to have a consistently high standard of support in jobcentres across the country. I do not agree, however, that a Bill is the right way to achieve that. There are other ways of achieving improvement across all the sectors of our public services. I have done an enormous amount of healthcare work, as she might know, and I do not believe that legislating from the top is necessarily the right way to reduce variation and bring everyone up to the level of the best. There are many ways of doing that that do not involve legislation.

[Peter Dowd]

I want to ask a specific question about the Bill. Clause 1 states:

“Before sanctions or reductions (“sanctions”) may be imposed on a person in receipt of social security benefits which will have the effect of reducing or restricting those benefits—

(a) an assessment of the relevant circumstances of the person must be carried out, and

(b) conditions in this Act found to be satisfied.”

What is the problem with that principle?

[Helen Whately]

I am going to deal with that point later in my remarks. As I was saying a moment ago to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, legislation is not always the right way to achieve improvement. Personally, I believe that, where possible, it is better to give those who work in the public sector greater autonomy to do a really good job. That gives people an enormous amount of motivation, because they usually go into those jobs because they want to make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is right that those circumstances are considered already, so much of what is in the Bill duplicates what is already done, and is included in extensive guidance to work coaches.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I wish to move on now to speak about mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Just briefly, please.

[Helen Whately]

I will give way briefly.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady says that legislation should not be introduced when it is not necessary, but the Government are poking their noses in all sorts of places where they should not be, so why not here? [Interruption.] She does not like legislation, but what about a code of conduct setting out the procedures, tests and standards to be followed and applied in carrying out assessments? What is wrong with a code of conduct laid down via regulation?

[Helen Whately]

As I literally just mentioned, there are already extensive guidelines, so why add to them with another code of conduct? It is simply duplication.

I wish to move on now to mental health. I am chair of the all-party group for mental health, and I recognise that there have been particular problems with sanctions being imposed on people with poor mental health. We know that people with mental health problems have been disproportionately affected by sanctions, partly because of the complex and fluctuating nature of those conditions, and that sanctions have caused them a great deal of stress and anxiety.

Mind, the mental health charity, has made the point about the great number of people with mental health conditions who have been receiving sanctions. In its evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee in 2014, it talked about the problems with the way that people with mental health problems were being supported in the benefits system, and those problems persist. We know that an individual’s mental health problems are not always well understood by the people in the jobcentres, and that some of the activities required of them as conditions for receiving benefits can be inappropriate and are sometimes thought to move them further away from work. That can be the case despite the fact that people with mental health conditions frequently very badly want to work.

Efforts are already being made to support people with mental health problems into work. Work coaches already receive guidance specifically on how they can best support people with mental health conditions. For instance, the definition of people regarded as “at risk” now includes those with mental health conditions, so hardship payments can be expedited. In recognising the challenge for people with mental health problems getting into work, the Government have recently published a Green Paper, “Improving Lives”, which is a joint effort between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. I very much welcome it, as it recognises that there is a large employment gap between those in good health and those with long-term illnesses—physical and mental—and it sets out a series of proposals to try to improve that situation. One proposal seeks to improve the support for people with mental health conditions, including developing the employment offer alongside talking therapies, enhanced training for work coaches to support people with mental health conditions, more disability employment advisers, and personal support packages offering better tailored employment support for people with health conditions. That set of proposals must be a reminder to everyone here how committed the Government are to helping people with health conditions into work, particularly those with mental health conditions. The Government are doing an enormous amount to help people in these situations. The Green Paper is very much part of a common theme of the Government listening, responding to the situation and trying to make the system better.

On the other actions the Government are taking, we have heard that they accepted the recommendations of the Oakley review. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its recent follow-up review, said:

“We welcome DWP’s acceptance of the Oakley Review’s findings, and the steps that it has taken towards implementation of the Review’s recommendations.”

The Government have accepted many of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s follow-up report, including trialling the yellow card system, so claimants will have 14 days’ warning before they are sanctioned, and we will soon hear how that has gone. The Government have been issuing comprehensive guidance to staff to improve awareness of how JSA conditions can be varied to take account of the claimant’s physical or mental health condition and caring responsibilities. The Government have also provided for claimants to agree with their work coach any restrictions in their pattern of availability and/or in the type and hours of work they are capable of doing, as long as the restrictions are reasonable in light of their condition. Therefore, all JSA claimants should have conditionality requirements that are tailored to their specific circumstances. As more people move on to universal credit, more will benefit from its even more tailored approach.

To conclude, given all that is being done to improve the system we have—a system that is rightly designed with a level of flexibility to allow for improvement—the Bill is unnecessary and unhelpful. It is unnecessary because it seeks to legislate for things the Government are already doing. For instance, there is guidance that requires an assessment to be carried out of whether hardship payments are appropriate. There is also a whole set of guidance about things that would count as good reasons for a claimant not to attend an appointment or make their Work programme commitments. Those good reasons include things such as homelessness, travel time, domestic violence, bullying, harassment, mental health conditions and learning difficulties.

I could go on, but, as has been said, that list is not intended to be exhaustive, and it gives scope for judgment on the part of the decision maker. Critically, the system we have is intended to support and enable work coaches to give flexible support to the individuals they are helping into work. It is intended to give some autonomy and responsibility to jobcentres in supporting people into work.

What we should not try to do where a system does not work perfectly is always to centralise and always to legislate. It is better to persist with an approach that is about improving the way the service works on the ground. My experience of work coaches is that they are thoughtful and doing their absolute best for the individuals they are trying to help into work, and I absolutely support them. What they have told me they need more than anything is time to spend with the individuals they are supporting. What they do not need is more complexity, more legislation and more rules that might get them into legal knots. Let us give them the support and the time to do the best possible job by the individuals they are helping into work.