[paperclip]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Whilst i am happy for the state to nudge individuals or the private sector in a particular direction as a fiscal Conservative i cannot support this bill.

Given the citizens income, isn't training investment required in order to prevent welfare dependency?

[toronto353]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
What's the interest rate?

You'll have to join the queue for questioning. Adorno and I have tried on the loan front though.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
You'll have to join the queue for questioning. Adorno and I have tried on the loan front though.

I tried the interest rate as well. Apparently it's not being installed until tuesday.

[Keckers]

This is the sort thing motions should be used for. To test the waters before submitting a bill.

With a motion you also wouldn't have people asking for figures and whatnot, which would have probably given you time to actually find some.

As it is, this is a waste of time.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by toronto353)
You'll have to join the queue for questioning. Adorno and I have tried on the loan front though.

I like the idea.. but all the Lib Dems have said is..:"We'll give them a loan of this much!".

We need to know a lot more about the terms of the loan itself..

[CyclopsRock]

This is basically like a student loan system for vocational training?

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea, though Adorno mentioned a lot of my misgivings.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
I'm certainly not opposed to the idea, though Adorno mentioned a lot of my misgivings.

Uh-oh.

[stanlas]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
This is basically like a student loan system for vocational training?

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea, though Adorno mentioned a lot of my misgivings.

I'm glad people seem to be leaning towards the idea in principle, though currently put off by the contents of the Bill (or even, the lack of content in some cases).

Hopefully, that will be overcome soon. To clarify, the ideas suggested that we are working on are:
1) Changing 16 to 18 to reflect higher school leaving age
2) Adding a definition of training and what the loan can be spent on specifically (which will probably get a new section)
3) Adding more specific loan mechanisms, probably linked to or at least modeled on student loans
4) More figures and some costing, if possible.

We obviously welcome more suggestions for the second reading

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

Of course, it probably helps that there are things called Career Development Loans, which do much of what this bill is aiming to do, already in existence.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Educatio...ns/DG_10033237

Game, set, and match.

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
QFA

Are you going answer Adorno's or my questions?

[stanlas]

(Original post by toronto353)
Are you going answer Adorno's or my questions?

Hopefully they are all covered by plans for the second reading. Were there any that aren't?

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
Hopefully they are all covered by plans for the second reading. Were there any that aren't?

Well that's not really an answer which can help this debate. Have we established then that this entire first reading is pointless because we don't have the answers that we need? All of my questions from my last post full of questions in this thread have gone unanswered as have Adorno's and xXedixXx's.

[stanlas]

(Original post by toronto353)
Well that's not really an answer which can help this debate. Have we established then that this entire first reading is pointless because we don't have the answers that we need? All of my questions from my last post full of questions in this thread have gone unanswered as have Adorno's and xXedixXx's.

Well the first reading itself wasn't pointless and there were plenty of suggestions made for the Bill, all of which have been taken into account. I don't think there is anything else to be said in this reading anymore, but as mentioned we will leave it open for a day or two to give us time to prepare the second reading and in case there is yet another major error that has yet to be pointed out; we have plenty of time after all.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by stanlas)
Well the first reading itself wasn't pointless and there were plenty of suggestions made for the Bill, all of which have been taken into account. I don't think there is anything else to be said in this reading anymore, but as mentioned we will leave it open for a day or two to give us time to prepare the second reading and in case there is yet another major error that has yet to be pointed out; we have plenty of time after all.

Then some response to my point, above, about Career Development Loans would seem to be in order. Failing that, perhaps you should ask the speaker to dissolve this reading and move to the 2nd one.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Well that's not really an answer which can help this debate. Have we established then that this entire first reading is pointless because we don't have the answers that we need? All of my questions from my last post full of questions in this thread have gone unanswered as have Adorno's and xXedixXx's.

If they were valid questions, and, indeed, fault has been found in the Bill then presumably he'll fix it in the second reading. He only needs to respond to questions if he has the answers, and it's foolish to say that not doing so is "bad for the debate" seeing as the obvious implication of him not answering is that there's no debate to be had on the points raised! Give the guy a chance.

As per everyone else, I support the intentions but the meat of the bill is a bit wooly (presumably it's mutton!). I'd like to see a more structured notes section because I'm too lazy to not need the information spoon fed.

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
Well the first reading itself wasn't pointless and there were plenty of suggestions made for the Bill, all of which have been taken into account. I don't think there is anything else to be said in this reading anymore, but as mentioned we will leave it open for a day or two to give us time to prepare the second reading and in case there is yet another major error that has yet to be pointed out; we have plenty of time after all.

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Then some response to my point, above, about Career Development Loans would seem to be in order. Failing that, perhaps you should ask the speaker to dissolve this reading and move to the 2nd one.

I agree with Adorno. You don't have the answers that we want and need and so really this is going nowhere at the moment, though I will press on regardless to actually produce a point which we can debate. Let's move onto Enforcement in section 3. The Bill says that the Local Authority checks the loan, but section 1 says that the Government provides the loan. Could you explain to me the exact processes that a) the applicant goes through to get this money and b) what exactly the responsibilities of the Government and Local Authorities are with regards to loan provisions and this scheme in general (from payment to repayment of the loan and the monitoring of the loan)? Could you also explain to me why you require two investigations and what each of the investigations, if both are needed, will actually investigate?

(Original post by JPKC)
If they were valid questions, and, indeed, fault has been found in the Bill then presumably he'll fix it in the second reading. He only needs to respond to questions if he has the answers, and it's foolish to say that not doing so is "bad for the debate" seeing as the obvious implication of him not answering is that there's no debate to be had on the points raised! Give the guy a chance.

These aren't complex questions. I'm asking exactly how much money he intends to spend. The author/ (s) of this Bill must have some idea of what they intend the scheme to do and what training they intend to fund. If I were asking complex questions, then I would of course wait for the second reading, but there must be some concept and some vision of what they want this to do and I want to get to that.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by paperclip)
Given the citizens income, isn't training investment required in order to prevent welfare dependency?

No, i would rather amend aspects of the citizens income.

At any rate CDL already exists and we have banks to provide money, only in special circumstances should the state encourage people to take on debt and this is not one of them.

[Moleman1996]

The bill's too sketchy on some areas for me, and why spend millions training people for jobs that don't exist at the moment, when by the time jobs become available the nature of these positions and the skills required may have changed>?

No from me.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has gone to second reading.