Clause 9
Welfare Reform Bill
5:30 pm
Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)
We have great concerns about this clause, which grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers that will be reinforced by regulation, but does not prescribe the limits of some of those powers. Schedule 3 mentions some of the powers that are granted. In particular, paragraph 5(1) deals with where information may be obtained from. It grants Jobcentre Plus staff with the power to obtain information held by
“a police force...the probation service, or...any other such person as may be prescribed.”
We do not have in this country a statute of limitations stating what responsibilities and rights people have, but we are granting the Secretary of State sweeping powers to obtain information about someone’s health and wellbeing. Returning to the point that I made this morning, that seems to run counter to the NHS constitution under which the treatment that someone receives is fundamentally for them to decide and may be offered by the NHS.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 3 refers to “a substance-relate assessment” and specifies in great detail how that might proceed. Our view is that there is a much better way of doing that and that such detailed regulation is better dealt with in a health Bill rather than a benefits Bill. The two may be related, but I would be more confident if civil servants in the Department of Health specified who might be a suitable person than if a regulation drafted by the Department for Work and Pensions did so.
Insufficient thought seems to have been given to how the provision will work. The Minister said that there will be pilots and that the matter will be prioritised, but what discussion has taken place with colleagues in the Department of Health to decide how it will be implemented? In our view, the worst outcome would be that people who are already on the waiting list for treatment and are not receiving benefits or who are receiving benefits but are not in a targeted group will be moved down the list to accommodate someone whom the Bill determines should receive priority. That is iniquitous, and not the right way of going about the matter. During the evidence sessions, reference was made to voluntary schemes and a proper assessment of them. Why have we not had a proper assessment of what is already working and how it can be extended?
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned Wales. Services throughout England vary from region to region, and different health authorities have different levels of provision. What guarantee is there and what discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Health to ensure that if a policy is imposed on, for example, the north-west or the south-west, the resources will be available to implement it and that it will work?
We are concerned about this aspect of the Bill, and how it will work in practice, including civil liberties and the amount of information that can be obtained from various sources, but which may not be necessary to enable JCP staff to undertake the job with which they have been charged. It seems to us that that would be better dealt with elsewhere than in the Bill.