Clause 14
Welfare Reform Bill
10:30 am
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
Good morning, Mr. Amess. It is a lovely morning and I think that we can make progress today. However, as ever, it is important that we at least question some of the small print.
When I see the word “directions” in a Bill, instinctively I smell a rat—if that is not an inappropriate thing to say—and at least want to question Ministers about why they use that word. In the spirit of making progress, I shall indulge the Committee with a brief anecdote: as a Minister, I remember having to make final decisions on whether schools should shut and saying to my private secretary, “Stalin died in about 1952. Some 40 years have now passed”—at that time—“and here I am, a Conservative Under-Secretary, being required by fiat to strike out with a pen the existence of a school”, albeit after a lot of consultation.
That was merely the preliminary to a substantive point, which is that Ministers and their officers and officials, as they know, need to act in accordance with the principles of judicial review and in a reasonable manner at all times. However, I am not saying that the Secretary of State or his officials should have no powers to issue directions in certain cases and, to be fair, the rationale for what is envisaged is set out in the explanatory notes.
In effect, the clause provides for the power to strike out a work-related activity if it is thought to be inappropriate for a person’s circumstances. However, I suspect that by the time that happened, relations between the personal adviser and the claimant or customer would have deteriorated badly, if the claimant had not been prepared to listen or were acting in ill-faith—a matter that we explored earlier—and went wild, as it were, or refused to do what was suggested. It is appropriate that Ministers take a moment or two to explain to the Committee the circumstances in which they envisage such a situation arising.
Will the Under-Secretary explain the relationship between that and an action plan? The purpose of the iterative process of interview is to establish capacity for work and the employment allowance. If unable to work, the person would attend a health assessment for work-related activity and an action plan would be drawn up. It would be useful if she could share with the Committee Ministers’ thinking on how divergences might arise, be monitored and then acted on under the terms of the clause.
I have some other administrative points to raisewith the Under-Secretary. First, I take it that the requirements would not apply to persons receiving the support allowance. I think that that is clear in the text because it is tied to clause 12, which I do not think applies to the support allowance, but it would be useful if she could clarify that. My second point is on the relationship with the payment of benefit. In effect, any direction under the clause would be saying, “Whatever the claimant is doing is not appropriate and does not count”. In normal circumstances, we cannot order people to stop what they are doing, but clearly the implied threat is the withdrawal of benefit. I am not clear on whether that would kick in retrospectively or only from the date of the notice.
Finally, in the spirit of my opening remarks, it is fairly clear that if that set of circumstances were to arise, relations already would have broken down. A formal notice of a decision by an officer on behalf of the Secretary of State would be a severe sanction in itself. It is quite important that if that then jolts people back to a sensible path forward, there is provision for advancing in a more constructive way. I presume that it would be possible at that point to rewrite the action plan or for the individual claimant to be able to make alternative proposals. I hope that, in normal circumstances, those will be considered in good faith and acted upon as soon as possible.
In conclusion, we have no absolute opposition to the principle of the provision; it may be necessary. It will, I suspect, be confined to a small number of cases, but it is important that any action taken under the clause is taken fairly. It should be properly documented and accompanied by the necessary input from the personal adviser into revising the action plan and involving the claimant in what they should be doing, as opposed to what is deemed to be inappropriate. However, the claimant should be able to make representations if they have not already done so and should be treated fairly throughout the process. I suspect that this can be done through regulations. Clearly it needs to be and we look forward to the Under-Secretary’s response.