Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 11 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.

Welfare Reform Bill

Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment—I have no doubt what that decision will be and I do not think any other Member of the Committee has—perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Clause 1 is predicated on the fact that the longer someone is unemployed, the longer it is likely they will continue to be unemployed. Clause 1 starts, as the Minister said, at the two-year point. Why was two years chosen? Would not one year or 18 months have been just as—I would have thought more—appropriate?

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c119GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Contracts Childcare Disadvantaged Charities Benefits rules Employment Jobseeker's allowance Jobcentre Plus Learning disability Home education Mental illness Pilot schemes Parents Pupil exclusions Pay Poverty Minimum wage Staff Lone parents Scotland Social security Social security benefits Voluntary organisations Training Transport Wales Unemployment Truancy Unemployed people Employment and support allowance Statutory instruments
Legislation
Welfare Reform Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk