Clause 14
Welfare Reform Bill
10:30 am
Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
That is the burden of the point that I was coming to. Clearly, the process of engagement that is set out in this Bill involves work-focused interviews, action plans being drawn up and a great deal of conversation and engagement with the claimant. The circumstances in which a direction would have to be issued to an individual—presumably such directions would be issued only in individual cases rather than generically, stating that a certain class of activity would not count as work-related activity—suggest that the previous steps in the process, for whatever reason, had not worked. There had been a breakdown in communication, a misunderstanding or the personal adviser or the contracted-out organisation would simply have chosen to issue such a direction. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could set out in a wee bit more detail the circumstances in which she foresees this power being used.
I would also welcome clarification on what rightsthe claimant has in response to such a direction. Presumably if someone has engaged in something that they consider to be work-related activity, made it clear to the officials that they regard it as work-related activity and are then told that the Secretary of State does not consider it to be work-related activity, they will have to do something else. In passing, I note that it seems that the powers here in relation to directions are quite different from the directions under the jobseeker’s allowance. Under the jobseeker’s allowance, directions can be made that the claimant must do something specific, whereas this direction is only to say that they must not do something specific, or if they do, it is not to count as work-related activity. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could clarify that.
There is thus the question about a claimant’s right of appeal or how they can challenge such a decision. Presumably if a claimant has carried on in good faith in the belief that such an activity is work-related, there must be a process by which they can engage in a discussion about the reasoning behind a decision notice being issued and the consequences of it. I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s response.