Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 183)
MONDAY 17 MAY 1999
MR RICHARD
EXELL, MS
PAT HAWKES,
MR FRANK
BONNER, MR
ALAN CHURCHARD
AND MR
KEITH WYLIE
180. A very safe argument! I think some of us
might question your analysis of Australia. They had had their
problems, but they were actually providing, in effect, a one-stop
shop. There were opportunities there, whether through the Internet
or through an adviser and we came away very clearly with the view
that the reception point was the clearest place for training,
whereas it is usually the person who had got least training who
is on the front desk and for us that was a very clear message
which, whether for the pilots or for the long term, should be
taken on board.
(Mr Exell) I wonder if I could come in on that point
because one of the advantages of the Gateway is you can get referred
on to the specialists, using the general practitioner analogy.
You can also get an awful lot of what you are looking for at the
initial stage from your Gateway Personal Adviser. One of the dangers
of having too broad a range of services accessible through such
a Gateway would be that it would become just another step that
you had to go through to get to whatever service you were looking
for because you had reached the point where no one could have
the range of expertise even to be a generalist in all those services.
So it does seem to me that the Gateway has specific advantages
in putting you in touch with a single person who can help lots
of people straightaway and if he or she does not know the answer
they know a man or woman who does, but if they were trying to
deal with everything, paying your income tax, what is the problem
with my car registration and all the rest of it, no one would
be able to do that, it would be just another stage you had to
go through to get to whatever you wanted.
Judy Mallaber
181. The PCS evidence makes a number of comments
on the very important process of evaluation which has been a continuing
theme in your contributions. Are you satisfied that the evaluation
process for the pilots is asking the right questions and are there
any other aspects that you think have been left out but that ought
to be evaluated?
(Mr Churchard) I think you have got a general point
about the evaluation criteria, which is that they have been very
broadly expressed. There are five points in the Government's original
document. They are not very sharply focused and therefore there
is the concern that in some sense the criteria may be developed
as we go along with the pilot projects, which I do not think is
the right way to do it. I think the whole process would benefit
from having some sharper definitions of what, for example, increased
access to the labour market is. It needs specifying so there can
be no doubt at the end of the process as to the integrity of that
evaluation. I am not suggesting anyone is going to try and make
it up as they go along, but I think it is important in any kind
of pilot or experimental process that you are as clear as you
can be at the very beginning as to what is success and what is
failure and I do not think at the moment we are entirely happy
that those criteria are sharp enough. I think we would also want
to be clear that the criteria that are being applied to the main
variant are exactly the same as are being applied to other variants
insofar as they can be.
(Ms Hawkes) I think you must have an analysis but
make certain that people are treated as individuals and that you
are responding to local circumstances. I come back—and I
do not apologise for the fact—to the fact that disabled
people very often will be a particular concern, though there will
be other groups of workers and potential workers. The final thing
is that sustainable worthwhile work comes out of it. I think you
have got to be asking those questions to make the pilots worthwhile
in terms of the people that we represent.
Kali Mountford
182. Can I come back to what Alan said about
sharpening up and focusing. I hope you are not meaning, Alan,
that we could play a numbers game and that we could actually look
at an evaluation in the round and not simply at how many placings
we can have.
(Mr Churchard) I do not think I am saying we should
play a numbers game.
183. Please take this opportunity to clarify
what you meant!
(Mr Churchard) There are five key stated purposes
to the project and as they are stated at the moment it is certainly
my view that they are open to some interpretation as to what they
mean and it seems to me that there is some element of vagueness
at the moment as to whether the outcome on each particular factor
is going to be a success or failure. You need to be a little bit
more focused and careful in defining what the evaluation criteria
are and what the definitions of success and failure are. I am
not saying it should be entirely a numbers game where the answer
depends entirely on dry statistics. I take your point exactly.
Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we are really
just getting into the meat of some of this and we could go on
discussing this very important subject for a long time. I wonder
if we could ask you to stay in dialogue as the Joint Committee
report goes along because your evidence this afternoon and your
written submissions have been very valuable to us in our work.
Thank you very much for coming.
|
