---

Welfare Reform Bill

The amendment is suggested by the Mental Health Coalition, a group of interested organisations consisting of MIND, ReThink, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, groups that I am sure that noble Lords will recognise. I agreed to table the amendment as it did not get much of an airing in another place. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, have added their names to that of my noble friend Lord Taylor and my own. The amendment would work by giving all ESA claimants an entitlement to an assessment carried out by, or linked to, Access to Work funding, to determine what adjustments might reasonably be made to improve the likelihood of a pension should they find employment. A claimant would not be compelled to undertake compulsory work-related activity until this assessment had taken place. The amendment would ensure that reasonable adjustments recommended in the assessment are to be funded through Access to Work, and are to be available to any employer. Access to Work is of course administered by Jobcentre Plus and aims to assist people with a disability or health condition who are in paid employment or about to start a job by providing practical support and help to meet additional costs associated with overcoming work-related obstacles resulting from their disability or health condition. Dame Carol Black’s review of employment, which the Minister and I were discussing in part last night, called for tailored support for people out of work, in both finding employment and keeping it. The scheme proposed in the amendment should be seen in this context, as a complement to existing schemes, very much in tune with the individual nature of the action plans that we have been developing. Evidence gathered by the organisation that developed the amendment suggests that Access to Work does not yet work effectively for people with mental health problems. Too few people with mental health problems are taking advantage of the scheme, and employers do not have sufficient support and understanding. In 2007-08, just 180 claims to Access to Work were made for mental health adjustments out of an overall total of just under 30,000. This seems, to me at least, to be a painfully low figure. The conclusion that one comes to is that if we can create greater flexibility in the timing of Access to Work assessments so that people can receive an estimate of the support they can expect to receive, take-up would improve and one hopes that employer discrimination would be reduced. Individual assessments before interview would help make people with mental health problems more attractive to employers. These adjustments should follow the person through their career to ensure that barriers are not perpetuated for people with mental health problems as they progress through that career. We must presume that it will be a powerful counterbalance to the fears of an employer of costs involved in adjustments and potential time off if a person is able to explain how much help Access to Work is likely to provide to the firm they are trying to work for. I shall be very interested to hear the views of other noble Lords on this matter, not least the Minister, because I feel that we have an opportunity to address an area where we know there to be a weakness in the system; namely, helping those with diagnosed mental health problems to get into and retain employment. I beg to move.