Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 16: 16: Clause 4 , page 4, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 89. My noble friend and I tabled these amendments to probe the Government’s policy on how claimants will move off the ESA when finding work, because that is clearly the ulterior motive of the whole operation that we are considering. I understand that the £40 a week return-to-work grant is very helpful for those adapting to employment after a long absence. It has been mentioned to us that the end of that grant after one year can come as quite a shock. A beneficiary will by then have settled into employment to a considerable extent, and might—indeed, we hope, will—be earning a higher level of wage to compensate. Those higher earnings, however, could then start counting against other benefits, which the return-to-work grant does not. Do the Government have any ideas about how to soften that shock, perhaps by introducing a taper at the end? Another piece of information that we have not yet acquired is the disregard level that is to be set for those earnings. What are the Government’s intentions here? How high will they set the disregard for this new benefit? Do they have any intention to change the 16-hour rule—we had a little discussion on that point earlier, but I did not get what I would regard as a full answer—so that claimants can work a part-time job and yet still have access to support, albeit with some sort of claw-back if appropriate with the ESA? I beg to move.