No, my Lords, I am not. However, I will explain precisely how we intend to carry forward what I have said.
Amendment No. 47 would have unintended consequences for a wide range of functions beyond decision-making that leads to sanctions. Contractors would not be able to revise or supersede a decision to waive work-focused interviews where it was appropriate—for example, if interviews were waived because a customer expected to start work but subsequently did not.
Amendment No. 46 could still give scope for the contracting-out of decision-making that could lead to sanctions. This is because the functions of decisions leading to sanctions will be imposed under Clauses 10(1), 11(1) and 12(1) rather than under the clauses referred to in Amendment No. 46. As these amendments would not achieve their stated aim and would interfere more widely in Pathways and ESA operation, we cannot accept them. However, I will make a commitment to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to achieve the desired result of removing powers to contract out decision-making that will lead to sanctions.
I therefore hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw these amendments and return to this matter at Third Reading.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 March 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Welfare Reform Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1072 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:55:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386083
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386083
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386083