I would not even have considered putting down this amendment, but for the fact that new Section 2E (2)(c) of the Social Security Administration Act does not refer to employment and support allowance, which given, as the Minister has just said, that the section refers to recipients and future recipients of income support or income-related benefits, caused me slight confusion.
I am glad that the support group of ESA will never be expected to fit into the progression-to-work part of the Bill, but the limited-capacity-for-work group on the lower rate of ESA obviously will be. Would it not be appropriate to have an action plan for them, with everything that goes with it?
I therefore accept that the amendment is not necessary and, even if it were, I take the Minister’s point that it is in the wrong place in the Bill. I shall perhaps think a little further on that, but I doubt that it will be necessary to come back on this issue. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 46 withdrawn.
Amendments 47 to 51 not moved.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c294GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:29:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568387
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568387
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568387