UK Parliament / Open data

Welfare Reform Bill

I have been asked to join the Committee at this stage by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. One brief look at the wording of the amendment will tell you why he considers it appropriate, if you know his wicked sense of humour. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment which could have sparked off a very large debate, but the amendment seems to be more of a probe. I expect that this is a theme to which we will return more than once in our deliberations. The amendment seeks to ensure that claimants would be required only to undertake "work for your benefit" schemes that are personally tailored to their needs, rather than, as the noble Baroness said, one-size-fits-all schemes, which may not be suitable or effective. She is concerned that the Government’s claims for providing high-quality, personally tailored employment and skills to support claimants is not backed up by any precise wording in the Bill. The noble Baroness is worried that, as currently worded, the Bill would allow for claimants to be required to participate in "work for your benefit" schemes that are simply "designed", but not apparently designed for anything much in particular. This raises an interesting question. Can the Minister be any more specific about the design of the scheme? We know from our bumper information pack that personal advisers will be on hand to offer, we are told, carefully tailored advice and support to participants. This is, of course, subject to all sorts of questions which I and other noble Lords will raise in our debates. I am thinking not least of the training which will be given to Jobcentre Plus staff for providing a personally tailored service. I expect that the Minister will have full responses to all our concerns, as and when they are raised in the coming days. It will be through careful examination of all the Government’s proposals, rather than hearing a warm assurance of good intentions from the Minister—welcome though that may be—that Members of the Committee will be able to determine whether the service that has been "designed" really has been personally tailored.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c72-3GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top