Welfare Reform Bill

I have been taken by surprise, as I rather expected the Deputy Chairman to announce that if this amendment were agreed to, it would pre-empt the next amendment in the large group of government amendments that follow. I tabled Amendment 24, which removes subsection (5) from proposed new Section 17B, because I was curious as to just what the Government were up to. I tabled the amendment before the Government got round to tabling their own, which is now listed in the Marshalled List as Amendment 25, which removes the first part of the subsection. I expect that we will hear why in a moment. However, I decided to table this amendment so that I did not steal the Minister’s thunder in the next group. I think that Amendment 25 is perhaps consequential on later amendments in the Government’s list; or perhaps it is the other way round, and those amendments are consequential on Amendment 25. Whichever it is, they are sensibly grouped. However, I will hold out for a brief explanation of what subsection (5)(b) does—the bit that is left after the Government have drawn a red line through their own drafting. Subsection (5)(b) amends Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, which deals with the effect of committing an offence on the allowance for joint-claim jobseekers—in other words, couples. With the inserted words, that part of the 2001 Act will read: ""8 Effect of offence on joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance … (2) The allowance shall not be payable in the couple’s case for so much of any period comprised in the disqualification period as is a period for which—""(a) in the case of each of the members of the couple, the restriction in subsection (2) of section 7 would apply if the entitlement were an entitlement of that member to a sanctionable benefit; or""(b) that restriction would so apply in the case of one of the members of the couple and the other member of the couple—""(i) is"—" these are the important new words— ""or is treated as being subject to sanctions for the purposes of section 20A of the Jobseekers Act 1995"," which covers the denial or reduction of joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance. I should like the Minister to explain what difference exactly the new wording makes. Why are we treating members of a couple as being subject to sanctions and not individuals within that couple? I expect that there is a very good reason, but the drafting is a little impenetrable and I would welcome the light of clarity being shone into the Stygian drafting gloom. Why is "treated as being" so important that the draftsman, having had his attention drawn to subsection (5), decided to leave paragraph (b) as it is? I beg to move.