---

Welfare Reform Bill

I hope that we can complete this in seven and a half minutes, but we shall see. Judging by our rate of progress so far, perhaps I am being optimistic, but I hope not. Amendment 43 seeks to remove the words "or remain in" from the list of definitions in subsection (8). The definition of "work-related activity" includes that which apparently allows a claimant to remain in work. I expect that I will be told by the Minister that this means equipping the claimant with the necessary skills to hold down a particular job. That, of course, is to be praised, but how will it be measured? How can you anticipate it? It seems to me that the likelihood of holding down a job depends on a number of factors, including the attitude of the claimant, how he applies himself to his work and also outside factors such as market conditions. How can any of us guarantee that someone is likely to remain in work? How can the Minister, after 1 June, guarantee that prospect? If the Government’s recession had turned into a depression, as some had feared, it would perhaps have been likely that not everyone could remain in a job. Does the wording of the Bill not open up the risk of instilling unrealistic expectations? If a claimant has been deemed likely to remain in work and subsequently finds himself out of work, will he have some recourse by using the words of the Bill as his proof? How, in practical terms, will a person be deemed to be likely to remain in work? Will it depend on the personal adviser’s opinion? Will it depend on the claimant’s enthusiasm, as I said, or perhaps on appraisals or even paper qualifications to show that he has ticked all the right boxes which make him likely to remain in work? I do not wish to seem nitpicking but I want to see, as I am sure all noble Lords do, that the measures in the Bill have been carefully thought through to their conclusion. I beg to move.