Welfare Reform Bill

I have tabled several amendments in this group and it might be appropriate if I speak to them now. The noble Baroness has tabled amendments that would change the emphasis of the scheme from one of a duty to fulfil obligations to one of entitlement. This is an area where I have some sympathy with her arguments. It sounds good to "empower" people, if that is the current buzzword. It would certainly be satisfactory if everything unfolded as we would like it to and if all those people we have in mind when we legislate were enthusiastic and motivated enough to take hold of their entitlement and use it to the full. That would be the best outcome that we could possibly hope for, but life is not like that. I wonder whether the noble Baroness’s views will be supported by the reality of people who are willing to get into the job market but have no idea how to go about it and even those who are more ambivalent about getting back into employment. Will they be helped by having all carrot and no stick? These are good questions, and I will enjoy sitting down and listening to the Minister explain exactly why impositions, duties, coercions and threats are necessary—to put them in increasing order. I have no doubt that his department has looked long and hard at this and there will therefore be a well reasoned justification for presenting us with a scheme drawn up in this way. My amendments in this group are much less weighted. Amendments 39, 40 and 41 are, broadly, drafting amendments. Amendment 39 would change the wording so that benefits were reduced for the prescribed time rather than until the prescribed time. I do not suppose that much hinges on this, as both versions would have a clear end date and so allow certainty. My suggestions would make it easier to collect and compare lengths of time that have been imposed as penalties. The Minister may consider that useful. Amendment 40 would leave out the words "reference to" in line 35. I see those words as unnecessary. If they do not add to the meaning of the clause, why are they there? Amendment 41 has been tabled simply to ask what is meant by the words "to the prescribed extent". Do the drafters mean time, amount or something else by the word "extent"? The drafting does not seem to be clear.