Welfare Reform Bill

Amendment 58 is intended to probe the Government’s intentions as to what claimants are expected to do or not do as part of work-related activity if they are in the progression-to-work group. The boundaries between the progression-to-work group and the work-ready group seem to be rather blurred. For those claimants who need a lot of help and support before they are ready to look for work it could be bewildering and confusing to conflate the two groups. Professor Gregg acknowledged that claimants’ routes back to work varied a lot. He gave five examples of work-related activity that might be considered for the progression-to-work group. The first three are not contentious: that is, to stabilise a claimant’s own or family situation, perhaps taking advice about debt or a housing problem; to manage their health for work; and to improve their skills for work. However, the next two seem to contradict having the progression-to-work group and the work-ready group as separate groups. They are to look for work and to prepare for full-time employment. All that we seek with this amendment is clarification that the last two activities would not be directed with an action plan for a progression-to-work claimant. Finally, I must again protest about volunteering being one of the suggestions for work-related activity which could be subject to a sanction. On Monday, when I raised this subject, the Minister said that if volunteering was part of an action plan, and was not fulfilled, the claimant could be sanctioned. The Minister said that I was "pressing for particular terminology". I do not mind what it is called. Perhaps "community work" or "community activity" would be better. But to call such activity "voluntary work", which could be sanctioned if not undertaken, is quite ridiculous, even if it is part of an action plan. I beg to move.