Welfare Reform Bill

That dispenses with new Section 2E of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and we move on to new Section 2F, which allows the Secretary of State to give directions about work-related activity. I am unsurprised that the Secretary of State should have such a power, as these are not details that one would expect to see set out in the Bill. However, we still need to find out what the Secretary of State will do with these directions, which has been a focus of attack throughout our discussions on the Bill, and I make no apology for it. Amendments 52 and 53 come as a pair, and Amendment 88 does something very similar in Clause 8. I wonder why the Bill restricts the participant to just one activity that may be deemed work-related. That seems unnecessarily restrictive, and even short-sighted. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a person is undertaking two or more activities that could be useful for progression into work, for example, working occasional shifts in a shop and also doing voluntary work. Both would be useful for a person seeking transition into regular employment, and they could easily happen at the same time. I see no good reason why both should not be found in the—I am not allowed to call it "personalised"—action plan. Even in case study no. 1, it is clear that in the "work for your benefit" schemes, to say nothing of the progression-to-work schemes, more than one activity can, and often will, be carried out over the relevant timescale. The qualities that a person needs to find work—simple but important things such as time-keeping, presenting oneself well and dealing with other people—can be learnt and improved on in different ways. The route to these skills might come in different forms, and that is surely to be encouraged. If a person has the gumption to engage in more than one activity that can be seen as work-related, that is to be applauded and encouraged. I am unclear why the Secretary of State should be able to specify only one activity as work-related. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain that there is more than meets the eye in this rather curious prescription. Amendment 59, which is in this group, is designed to ask why Clause 2(3) allows for a direction to provide for a variation to have effect before the direction is given, which is a little confusing. Although that seems to be an impossibility, I imagine it is so that the Secretary of State can give retrospective approval to a change that has occurred without his say-so, but which should not result in a sanction on the participant. That sounds as if the original direction was flawed in some way and the participant was right to ignore it. Is that what the Government have in mind? I beg to move.