Clause 1 is specifically about making provision for "work for your benefit". "Work for your benefit" will be a significant increase in the support that we offer and the activity that we require long-term jobseekers to undertake; namely, up to six months of full-time work experience. This clause is designed to ensure that there is no doubt about our ability to require this of jobseekers.
The amendment would, on the other hand, leave considerable room for misunderstanding about the scope of the powers in this clause: for example, whether full-time work experience is actually work-related activity or work. That kind of ambiguity cannot be good for anyone. It is certainly not good for what we seek to achieve here. However, given the nervousness about the use of "work", it might be useful to put on the record exactly what we intend for "work for your benefit". I hope that this will offer some reassurance.
Participants will be expected to do full-time work experience—that is, up to 30 hours a week—but it could be less if the claimant has caring responsibilities, for example. This will be backed up with up to 10 additional hours per week of wider employment support to help claimants to capitalise on the experiences that they are gaining. The work experience will not be one-size-fits-all. Placements will be sourced by providers on an individual basis based on the needs of the claimant and we will expect providers to support claimants in those placements. We will not specify what type of work experience the claimant must do, nor will it need to be in any particular sector. It will depend entirely on the aspirations of the claimant and their barriers to work. This does not provide any easy answers when people ask what type of work people will be doing, but it is entirely the right approach.
In this clause we could specify to our hearts content what we expect of participants, but in the end it would do nothing more than restrict the innovation and creativity of providers and guarantee that someone, somewhere would be unable to do the kind of work experience they need to. I hope that this gives some reassurance that there is no need for this amendment. In using the word "work", the text is intended to make clear that participants will be required to undertake work-related activity that is different or more intensive from that in which they have previously participated; namely, full-time work experience over a period of up to six months.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c79GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:53:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_564967
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_564967
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_564967