Welfare Reform Bill

Given that social security laws are viewed with great suspicion outside the two Houses of Parliament, it is beholden on the Government to be very clear and inform people in advance of the pilots starting and, even more importantly, to publicise what is going on before work-related activity is rolled out countrywide. That applies equally to able-bodied people; doubtless, we will hear quite a lot more about this in our discussions. Employment and support allowance, to which Amendment 46 refers, when it is fully up and running is to be paid at two rates. Let us forget the first 13 weeks, when everybody is on the lower rate; what we are interested in here is when the two weeks operate side by side for a longer period of time. It is also, like jobseeker’s allowance, to be paid on two different criteria, depending on the amount of NICs paid. If I am right—and I think that I probably am—the higher rate is payable when the claimant needs to be supported because of disability, the lower one when the claimant has limited capability to work. My problem with line 21 on page 6 of the Bill is that both those are covered at the same time; neither the Peer’s information pack nor the notes on clauses has been any help to me. It seems to us—or to one of us, at least—that the support group is extremely unlikely to come into requirement for action plans for work-based interviews, unless the individual starts to recover from whatever illness or disability caused them to be put in that group in the first place, whereas those with limited capability to work and with lower benefit in payment will always need to be subject to interview action plans—and perhaps to the Minister’s favourite, sanctions, as well. Hence, I have tabled this probing amendment to discover what plans the Government have for the long-term ill and disabled. I am sorry—I should have put "people" in that sentence; I apologise particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. From the wording on the Bill, which covers everyone on contributory ESA, the Government must have some reason, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain. It would also be useful for him to explain the thinking regarding those on the non-contributory basis of ESA, which also needs to be covered somewhere. I beg to move.