Welfare Reform Bill

I move Amendment 36 and shall speak to Amendment 77. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and I have tabled Amendment 36 as a simple probing amendment on what may or may not be a simple issue. There are, in truth, elements that present us with a conundrum. The Minister referred to those in his closing contribution to the debate on the previous group. The amendment would leave out paragraph (e) in new Section 2D, which is to be inserted into the Social Security Administration Act. Once more, we are asking the Minister to give us a run through how the regulations will work. Paragraph (e) needs to be read quite carefully for it to mean very much. Earlier subsections tell us that we have two members of a couple—P and C—who are getting the current rate of benefits. In that couple, C is getting benefits at a higher rate, and P has to undertake work-related activity as a condition of C continuing to get his or her benefit at that rate. So far, so straightforward. However, paragraph (e) is obviously there because someone in the department realised that there may be some rather tricky domestic situations. The Bill’s draftsmen have wisely left the details to the hapless official who will have to come up with the regulations. To challenge the Minister, and trusting that he is willing to do so, is he prepared to give us an illustration of the style that the regulations will take? Paragraph (e) clearly envisages a situation where C is a member of more than one couple. I assume that this means, or at least includes, polygamous marriages. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and, if that is not exclusively the case, perhaps provide examples of other possible situations? What criteria will be applied to determine which person can or should not be? What will happen in cases where the claimant might be married to one person but living with another? Does there need to be a mechanism in place for more complicated family situations, where different members of different couples are each supporting dependants? I am curious to know how this will be policed. I would like to hear a suggestion for how the Government will set criteria for rating the work-readiness of couples who share a member. There may well be more questions to ask once the Minister has set out his plans, but the wording of the Bill as it is now is tantalisingly embellished. Amendment 77 is grouped with Amendment 36 because it is also probing and also refers to claiming couples. Clause 4(2) makes an insertion to the Welfare Reform Act 2007. Plainly, the Act was not reformed enough; welfare reform seems to be a bit like the Forth road bridge, with the Minister busy, paintbrush in hand. My purpose, though, is to justify Amendment 77, which is to ask what this change does. I looked at the wording of the new condition—the claimant, ""is not a member of a couple the other member of which does not have limited capability for work"—" and I asked myself, "What on earth does that mean?". I would be grateful if the Minister could give an explanation that did not use a double negative and therefore made more sense. I beg to move.