To answer that question you have to look at the whole of the benefit. I have already said that, if you look at the 13-week period and the time at which the work-related activity component or the support-group component kicks in—and we have emphasised that the former of those would be higher than the existing long-term rate of IB—you would expect that would arise earlier than under current circumstances. Obviously, the assessment phase has a different effect. That comes from an analysis of those timeframes and the components of payments within those timeframes.
I stress again that we have not set the overall level, but we are saying that it would be higher than the existing long-term rate of IB. You have to look at the new arrangement; you cannot simply compare it readily with the old. Also, when you look at the ESA, you are not only looking at the benefit levels; the support package that comes with it is a key part of it. That is why it is structured as it is. In terms of where you draw the line, clearly a judgment must be made and a balance must be struck between the needs of all the customers or clients—call them what you will—who are the people that we should be looking to support and help.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 February 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c26GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_377938
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_377938
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_377938