Welfare Reform Bill

These provisions generally deal with recipients of income support or with partners of certain recipients of income-related benefits. If I understood the thrust of the noble Lord’s remarks, he seeks to ensure that ESA claimants in the support group are not brought within the provisions. I understand why he tabled the amendment, but I hope that I can convince him, at least on this occasion, that it is unnecessary. Clause 2 inserts new Sections 2D, 2E and 2F into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Together with the existing provisions in Sections 2A and 2AA of that Act, they provide the basis for introducing the concept of a progression-to-work group, as envisaged by the Gregg review. By his amendment, the noble Lord seeks to protect those receiving the support component in employment and support allowance from the strictures of these provisions. However, the provisions of this clause apply only to claimants of income support and the partners of claimants of that benefit, of income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment and support allowance. So it applies to the lone parents with younger children whom we have discussed and the partners of claimants of other income-related benefits. The clause does not impact on claimants of the employment and support allowance at whatever rate that benefit is paid, so the amendment could not have the effect that the noble Lord seeks. There are extant powers in Sections 13 to 15 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 which allow us to subject employment and support allowance recipients to work-related activity, action plans and adviser directions, but none of those provisions applies to claimants in the support group. The construction of Clause 2, together with existing legislation in the Welfare Reform Act, does not permit people in the support group to be subjected to work-related activity. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment in light of that explanation.