New Clause 11
Welfare Reform Bill
4:00 pm
Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you here in the flesh, Mr. Amess, as well as having you here in spirit this morning. Members will recall that on Second Reading, the Secretary of State, in answer to a point by another hon. Member, said that he would consider the idea of a claimant charter. He said:
“I am aware that the idea has been suggested by Gingerbread, as well as by my hon. Friend, and it has a lot of promise. We want to consider how we can make sure that it is not restrictive and does not become a lawyer’s charter. As I will argue, we want to move towards a more flexible system based on personalised conditionality. If we are to do so, we need to look at how individuals can know that they will be treated fairly.”——[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009; c. 182.]
That last statement from the Secretary of State is pertinent to the new clause which has been prepared in conjunction with the Disability Alliance, which includes Gingerbread, Citizens Advice and Child Poverty Action Group. With the new clause, we seek to set out clearly the rights and obligations of the jobcentre and the various private providers and voluntary organisations that work under contract with Jobcentre Plus. It would also set out clearly the claimant’s rights and responsibilities.
I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform knows, from his time at the Home Office, that when people arrive in or leave the UK, they can see a clear charter on a board, at every Border and Immigration Agency entry point, setting out what the agency will and will not do, and how someone who is dissatisfied with the service that it has provided can deal with those regrets. Many hon. Members feel that, given the groundbreaking nature of the Bill, a similar charter should be produced for claimants. Our probing new clause, with which we hope to establish how far the Government are prepared to consider these ideas, sets out our belief that claimants should be handed a copy of the charter at the first stage, at their first interview, so that they know what is involved. It should not matter whether they are dealing with Jobcentre Plus or an independent agency.
The second provision concerns an issue that we have discussed this morning—how any sanctions that are imposed might impinge on a claimant’s ability to subsist. We think it important to set out that sanctions should not force a person into a situation in which they or their family are unable to subsist. If that happens, the sanction system is not working.
The third provision is about being treated with dignity and respect. That is the kind of treatment that one should expect from JCP officers anyway, but such expectations are clearly stated in most charters. Again, the next provision states that claimants should not be subject to degrading or discriminatory treatment. During these debates, we have discussed how people with disabilities, and people with drug and alcohol problems, might be treated. The Minister has assured us that agendas will be personalised and will take account of such issues. If so, there should be no problem with stating up front that that should happen.
The next provision is about what should happen after the initial meeting and after the contract has been agreed. Once it has been set out what must happen in the next few weeks, which of the three categories the claimant might be put into, and what action is required, there should be a clear, written statement setting out what will happen next. A big and common complaint of people dealing with Government Departments is that it takes an age for paperwork and agreements to be dealt with; I am sure that other hon. Members have experienced that. What we are saying is that once someone is registered and an agreement has been made, they should be provided with timely and accurate information and benefits, so that they do not end up in the situation that currently occurs with benefits and other payments such as housing benefit, in which applicants are forced to take out crisis loans because of delays. Clearly, the system is not working if that situation arises.
The next provision is about monitoring the process. I know that it is common practice for Government Departments and bodies such as Jobcentre Plus to monitor and record phone calls. From my experience of dealing with such issues, recording such calls has made it possible to resolve disputes, so we want that to happen. One slight change is something that I feel strongly about—the use of 0845 numbers. Currently, people who need to phone up to get information about their benefits spend disproportionate amounts of money getting through. The Government are reviewing the use of freefone and 0845 numbers, but the new clause states that such phone calls should be free, so that exercising a claim or dealing with a query does not cost the claimant any money.
The next provision is about an appeal against a decision—when the claimant feels that the sanction or the agreement is unfair. Members of the Disability Alliance want the establishment of a separate employment services ombudsman, but we think that that would be a duplication. The parliamentary ombudsman’s remit has this year been extended to include health care issues, and when a claimant feels that they have been hard done by they should be able to go to the parliamentary ombudsman. She would be able to set out the situation clearly. The ombudsman would not deal with day-to-day issues; they would be dealt with through the internal appeals process.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with the next measure, which would ensure high-quality provision that was tailored to the individual’s needs. During the passage of the Bill, we have raised many concerns about the ability of JCP to deliver that high-quality, personalised service, so the charter should say clearly, “This is the level of service and this will take full account of your needs. If not, there is a process through which you can go in order to appeal.”
The next provision in the charter would deal with the issues surrounding someone who was involved in the process. Will there be adequate child care? On the issue of including lone parents, we have voiced concerns to ensure that there will be adequate child care with which the parent is happy, not something that the Department imposes. If the parent has to travel to an office, reasonable transport costs should be reimbursed, and the measure sets out provisions for any interview costs that might be incurred.
The next provision deals with the situation when appropriate child care or support is not in place. If the claimant is a carer, they should not be forced into undertaking an activity that prevents them from discharging their wider activities.
The next point, which the TUC raised in its submission, refers to the situation in which work experience becomes work. No one on work experience should substitute for a real worker. If they do, they should receive the going wage for that job. That is a reasonable point to build into a claim.
Finally, the claimant should be able to get free, independent and appropriate advice. If a claimant were involved in drugs or had a mental health problem, organisations such as Mind would be appropriate for the provision of independent advice to the claimant. It often does so already, and the claimant should get advice on where to go.
The provisions of the charter are not fixed. I hope that the Minister will accept the way in which the new clause has been introduced. Given the Secretary of State’s willingness to consider a charter, I hope that if the Minister is not able to accept the measure, he will advise us how it will be put on the statute book, so that we have a clear claimants charter that sets out those rights and responsibilities by Report stage or by the time the Bill completes its stages in both Houses and the scheme is in operation.
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) rose—