---

Welfare Reform Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has set me a challenge: no double negatives. I will see if I can deal with the important points that he has raised. New Section 2D(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 makes provision for regulations to place on a partner of a benefit claimant a requirement to undertake work-related activities. Subsection 2D(4)(e) deals with the issue of polygamous marriages; that is its focus. In some countries such marriages are recognised under the law. The legitimacy of such relationships is recognised by the statutes that govern the UK welfare benefits system, but it is often necessary to make specific provision so that it is clear which rights and responsibilities attach to each party to the relationship. It is our aim that each member of a polygamous relationship should be subject to the conditionality regime appropriate to their individual circumstances. We will allocate each person to one of the three conditionality groups recommended by Professor Gregg, and expect each person to undertake the appropriate actions. For example, a man claiming employment and support allowance has two wives. With one of these wives he has a child aged six months, and with the other, a three year-old. Wife number one is in the "no conditionality" group and so will not be mandated to any work-related activities. However, wife number two is in the progression-to-work group, and we wish the provisions of this clause to apply to her. Regulations under new Section 2D(4)(e) will make clear what obligations are to be placed on which individual in these complex arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, asked what would happen if they did not know about each other’s existence. That is an interesting point but it does not obviate that approach. These are issues around the circumstances of each individual. I do not know whether in normal circumstances two or more partners of a polygamous marriage would know of each other’s existence; I imagine that sometimes they would, but presumably sometimes they would not.