---

Welfare Reform Bill

I must confess that I got confused when reading this first amendment on today’s Marshalled List. We are looking at an amendment which would insert a new clause to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, which in turn appears to refer to work-related activity, as defined in Section 2D of the Social Security Administration Act that is about to be created by the Bill. It is a tortuous path and I must confess that I am not there yet. But I hazard it that the aim of the noble Baroness’s amendment is to make sure that any money or at least some money on a work-related activity does not count towards any amount disregarded as income on which supplementary benefits are based. From what the noble Baroness said, she was talking about £24, which is the same amount as is available under ESA, to which I will turn in a minute. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness in her basic proposition. For a start, I am not at all clear that work-related activity will produce any income. I had assumed that if one was earning money from an activity, that would be work. We have touched on this before, but perhaps this would be a good opportunity for the Minister to clarify these definitions. If the work-related activity does not produce an income, the applicable amount referred to in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act would not be affected one way or the other. However, should the work-related activity generate an income, what reason is there for that to be entirely disregarded, which, as I understand it, could occur under the amendment? Let us take the hypothetical situation—I admit that it is very unlikely—where a participant in the back-to-work scheme lands a work-related activity which pays more than the amount that they would receive on benefits. Why should there be a total disregard so that full benefit is paid as well? I accept that this extreme scenario will almost certainly never happen, but the principle remains. I, too, would like to know why a single parent is to receive no disregard, while a single parent with a disabled child would receive a disregard. It seems totally illogical, and I, too, look forward to what the Minister has to say.