Skip to main content

1-20 of 348 results for subject:Jobcentres

Subject X
Pathways to work programme

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Pathways to work programme (348)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Amendment 7 7: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out "or be able to do so"

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c80GC
House
House of Lords

I am sorry, but I am still confused. If a person is doing 30 hours of full-time work why does he need to do 10 hours of work experience?

Member
Countess of Mar (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c80GC
House
House of Lords

Does the phrase "or be able to do so" apply to someone who is trained and ready for work but for whom there is no job, like the over-50s who I have talked about?

Member
Countess of Mar (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c83GC
House
House of Lords

It is clear from new subsection (5)(a) that the personal adviser needs to notify the participant of the need to undertake work-related activity. I assume that that will take place at the original interview when the sort of work-related activity will be proposed and, in theory, at least, be agreed....

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c84GC
House
House of Lords

One hopes that at the end of six months an individual would be able to reach and sustain employment. If not, they would return to the Flexible New Deal, or to Jobcentre Plus at an earlier stage of the journey through the jobseeker’s allowance process.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c84-5GC
House
House of Lords

Why could we not split the difference and shove in "personally" before "designed"?

Member
Lord Rix (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c73GC
House
House of Lords

I will start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and his comments about the staff survey. Jobcentre Plus in particular is under enormous pressure, given the volumes that it copes with, and in my view is doing fantastically well. It is still meeting the targets that were set...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c74-6GC
House
House of Lords

I shall pick up one or two points. I want to be clear about the definition of "work for your benefit". They are people who are work-ready, but as my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, "work-ready" might mean they still have quite a long way to go. We probably...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c77GC
House
House of Lords

Amendment 6 6: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out "work, or"

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c78GC
House
House of Lords

We agree that blurring work and work-related activity is very confusing. I think this was the noble Lord’s point. "Work for your benefit" is a tough slogan, whereas "work-related activity for your benefit" does not work nearly so well. If this is what is meant, we should know this. In...

Member
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c78-9GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, and indeed for the series of amendments. If it can help to clarify things for the record, it is time well spent. However, the amendment would remove our ability to suspend a jobseeker’s agreement while a jobseeker takes part in "work for...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c86GC
House
House of Lords

Amendment 9 9: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 13 and 14

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c85GC
House
House of Lords

Let me see if I can provide the noble Lord with a little more detail. If the individual goes back to Jobcentre Plus, they would go back to stage 3 of the process. There are three stages; the first three months is a self-managed job search, the next three months...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c85GC
House
House of Lords

I probably did not deal specifically with that. It depends on someone’s journey into the "work for your benefit" regime, but that will be provided by an external provider, so there will be a point at which the individual moves from a Flexible New Deal programme to the external provider....

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c87GC
House
House of Lords

I accept that any amendment has a proper purpose behind it. I do not mind how many there are, as long as we have the time to get through them all. I would not accept without detailed evidence the proposition that the use of a framework approach to legislation has...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c62-3GC
House
House of Lords

There is absolutely no doubt that childcare, which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will remember came up strongly when we debated the original order on lone parents some two years or 18 months ago—I do not know; it does not matter—is vital to the whole scheme of things. The question...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c61-2GC
House
House of Lords

Will the Minister say who will be responsible for determining whether the childcare is "reasonable" and all the other adjectives that he attaches to it? That is the crucial point; do these personal advisers have to determine that, and, if so, will they be qualified to make those decisions?

Member
Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c63GC
House
House of Lords

As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I suddenly realised the problem of this Bill: the infrastructure is not in place. It is a little like building a whole lot of houses in the middle of a field and not having roads, water supplies, electricity and telephones. I...

Member
Countess of Mar (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c60GC
House
House of Lords

Again, I wonder whether my noble friend can help us. Are we still eliding the distinction between progress to work and employment? Where we are dealing with employment, we are dealing with children whose youngest age is seven. Therefore, they would fall within the school day. It may well be...

Member
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c69GC
House
House of Lords

It is not reasonable to go from the Gregg report to this legislation because a lot of the philosophy behind the Gregg report is to some degree misconceived; it is certainly not being taken as a straightforward transposition from the one to the other. I think the noble Lord would...

Member
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 June 2009
Reference
711 c70GC
House
House of Lords