Tagging on three months is not the purpose of the amendment or of anyone who has spoken to this. There is concern about unfairness. The Minister said that you get the money from day one, but the point is that you get the money only at the basic JSA rate for the first 13 weeks. You do not get the enhanced funding that comes with the employment and support allowance when you are in either the not-fit-for-work group or not-fit-for work-related activity group. Those premiums do not kick in until after week 13. The Minister is frowning. Someone will correct me if that is wrong but I am getting support from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I realise that we are not going to get definitive answers on any potentially significant policy development and change in the sickness absence report between now and Third Reading. However, rather than cause us to press this to a vote tonight, could not the Minister at least agree that we can have some further engagement between now and Third Reading to understand a little better the parameters of what is happening on sickness absence and how it might affect the assessment phase?
Seeking to press an issue that, given the hour and whose troops are available, we may or may not win would not be particularly constructive. People are trying to end up in the same place on this issue, which is very much the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is saying, so could the Minister at least assure us of further engagement so that we can understand where this may be heading and the parameters within which it will be considered? Otherwise we move to Third Reading stuck with an assessment phase that we do not think is particularly fair and, in the Minister’s own words, not particularly sustainable. That does not seem a very sensible position to be in.
I do not propose to press the amendments tonight on the other two issues, retrospection and not accumulating the time spent in the work-related activity group, but I am seriously minded to press the issue of the assessment period, because we could have further engagement on that that might be of benefit to noble Lords, some of whom may be more supportive of these measures than others. We are genuinely trying to help the Government, and if they do not want to be helped we might have to look at the alternative. Perhaps the Minister can help us.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 January 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c197 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:58:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799228
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799228
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799228