Examination of Witnesses (Questions 227
- 239)
TUESDAY 15 JUNE 1999
RT HON
ANDREW SMITH,
MP, MS ANGELA
EAGLE, MP, MR
CHRIS BARNHAM
AND MR
JEREMY GROOMBRIDGE
Chairman
227. Good morning. You are very welcome indeed.
This is a very exciting concept, which many of us are very keen
to see develop quickly. Some of my colleagues and I went to Australia
to see what they are doing there. We were enormously impressed
by the potential for taking forward joined-up Government, and
giving the clients the kind of client-based service which I am
sure we all see as a way forward in developing the public service.
So may I welcome my two colleagues and Ministers, and perhaps
ask them if they would each individually just briefly say what
their hopes are for this development.
(Mr Smith) Briefly, without the benefit
of having visited Australia, I share what you say about this being
an exciting opportunity. We certainly see it as a chance to pilot
far-reaching reform in the way in which the gateway to the welfare
and employment support services can provide a shift in culture
which puts work, the barriers to work, but also other means of
enhancing independence, more to the centre of our system; the
opportunity is greatly to improve the service to clients, and
to replace what is a fragmented and all too often an unsatisfactory
service, at the moment, with one which is integrated, which provides
seamless support, and which gets a better balance between rights
and responsibilities.
228. Thank you.
(Ms Eagle) I think that when we began to see how we
might be able to evolve the public service in this way, and when
we decided that these pilots would be the first step in that process,
one of the first things we did was to turn the telescope around
and look at it the other way, so that it is focused on the client,
the person who is at the receiving end of what, at the moment,
are very fragmented and unco-ordinated services, which often ask
for the same information over and over and over again, and which
have very complex claiming procedures from the benefits point
of view. We thought: how can we make this more integrated? How
can we make the experience of the client of a public service much
more positive, more dynamic, more helpful? How can we also improve
the service so that we can give accurate assessments much faster
and have a much more service-orientated approach? That was the
basic principle we applied in developing these pilots: on turning
the telescope round, having a look at how the service felt from
the point of view of the people using it. I always bear that in
mind when I am trying to make decisions on how we should proceed
and what it is we should be trying to achieve.
229. Thank you very much. Tell us about Wolff
Olins, the `ONE' concept. Why did you decide that this was important,
how much is it costing, and is it not just a bit of public relations
nonsense?
(Mr Smith) It certainly is not that. If we are to
transform the gateway to the welfare and employment support systems,
then we do need to look very thoroughly at things, not just things
like name and the branding, but what underlies that in terms of
the way in which the service is communicating their messages to
clients, to employers, to the wider public; what the experience
is, as Angela has just been saying, which clients undergo in centres,
and what the quality of that experience is. So Wolff Olins' answers
are not simply advising on the name and the message, it is the
environment, the lay-out, the way in which clients are advised,
an input into all of that. They have undertaken extensive research
with clients, with staff at the Benefits Agency, the Employment
Service, local authorities, and with the wider public and employers,
in developing the advice that they are giving us. They won the
contract in open and competitive tender. The cost is something
like £60,000 a month. We anticipate the equivalent of up
to four months' work.
230. I am not quite certain how we want to proceed;
whether Angela and Andrew want to contribute to each of the questions.
Do not feel obliged to do so but if you want to you are very welcome.
(Ms Eagle) I think we will probably contribute seamlessly
and if I can add anything to what Andrew has said, or if he can
add anything to what I have said, we will just pitch in.
231. As a model of joined-up Government!
(Ms Eagle) That is right.
(Mr Smith) Perhaps it is worth underlining that not
only is this pioneering a transformation of the service, but it
has been a model for integrated co-operation between Departments.
I chair the ministerial group, and a number of Departments represented
there are working very closely with the DSS and my Department,
and both the project team and the local implementation teams are
made up of people not only from Departments, Benefits Agency,
and Employment Service, but, very importantly, for the purpose
of these pilots, from local authorities as well.
232. The timetable for the pilots is pretty
challenging. Are you satisfied that ONE offices in the basic model
areas will be up and running and fully operational by 28 June?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
233. That is a good short reply.
(Ms Eagle) We all know that the timetable is challenging.
Everybody has been working extremely hard to reach that. We need
to bear in mind that you will not have completely all-singing,
all-dancing, fully-up-and-running, at-full-speed pilots on day
one, but we will be able to achieve a significant difference in
service in those basic pilot areas, one which we hope to deepen
as the pilots go on.
234. To what extent are they real pilots? When
we had the New Deal they were not pilots in that sense, I do not
think. In what sense are these pilots? Have you genuinely got
an open mind about the outcome of the different models? Or have
you some preconceived notion and you are doing a bit of experimentation
to confirm what you already believe?
(Mr Smith) These are genuine pilots. The Pathfinders
in the New Deal were never intended as new pilots. Obviously they
were an opportunity to test and modify the systems before the
New Deal went national, but we do not have any preconceived ideas
about which of the variants are going to work best. We appreciate,
as Angela has just been saying, that we will want to improve them
as we go along. Obviously, we think this is a good idea, otherwise
we would not be embarking on it; and whilst clearly there is a
possibility of national roll-out, we have not yet committed to
national roll-out. Neither have we said when we will be in a position
to reach a decision on that. I would just stress that the pilots
are going to be subject to comprehensive and robust evaluation,
although you may have further questions about that.
235. Just remind me of the time span: how long
are the pilots going to last and how long is the evaluation going
to be? When may you be in a position to be drawing the lessons
from that?
(Mr Smith) Of course, we get the basic pilots up and
running from June 28. We have the Call-Centre and private/voluntary
sector variants up and running from this November. They are due
to run through until 2002 when we will get the full results of
the evaluation.
(Ms Eagle) The other main phase of difference is the
attendance at an interview becoming compulsory, which will happen
in April of next year, so you have the two distinct phases of
the three different basic approaches.
236. Okay. So those of us who are very enthusiastic
about this concept and want to see it pressed forward pretty rapidly
may have to be patient, by the sound of it. We are not going to
be in a position until what?—2002?—until you can really
draw proper lessons and be in a position to roll-out the programme.
(Mr Smith) We will make information available as soon
as we can. It will not simply be a case of sitting back and waiting
until 2002. There will be information on the basic pilots operating
in the voluntary mode which, of course, are before April next
year—although that is subject to the passing of the Welfare
Reform and Pensions Bill—but there will be qualitative evidence
available on their performance by the end of this year, and quantitative
evidence available by the summer of next year. On the variants,
which are starting in November, Call-Centre and private/voluntary
sector, there will be qualitative evidence available in the autumn
of next year, and quantitative evidence available towards the
end of next year. On the compulsory operation of the pilots, then
we are expecting qualitative evidence in the winter of 2000/2001,
and final qualitative evidence in the summer of 2001.[1]
One other thing I think it is important to underline, which the
ministerial group has emphasised and which is a lesson which we
have, in a sense, learnt from the New Deal's evaluation, I am
concerned that when qualitative reports are published that the
quantitative context, within which that qualitative experience
sits, is published alongside it. This is because it is in the
nature of this research that you get the qualitative research
available earlier. It is often very unsatisfactory for us as Ministers
and, indeed, for commentators and you holding us to account. You
wonder how reliable this is and what does it really tell you about
how it is going. So we want to bring forward the quantitative
information as early as possible. Sometimes it might be a factual
summary of what has happened to date, without our necessarily
being able to draw statistically reliable conclusions, but it
is better to have the information alongside the qualitative evaluation
rather than not to have it.
(Ms Eagle) It is also important to remember
that we have not said that we will roll-out nationally these pilots
ahead of seeing how they work, but we have not ruled out rolling
them out, or rolling aspects of them out, before the end of the
piloting process. So it is really a "watch how things go",
make assessments as we go along, and decisions may or may not
follow.
Chairman: Okay, thank you. Archy.
Mr Kirkwood
237. I wonder if I could ask Andrew a question
about the policy as a whole, and then ask a second question to
Angela about the concentration on work. I am concerned, having
read and studied the work that David Webster has been doing in
Glasgow, he has been arguing the case that of course the policy
is right and is enthusiastic about its development but, of course,
it is a supply side measure concentrated on the supply side. That
is fine where there are jobs available. So in some of these pilot
areas where there is a job market to be attacked, reskilling people
and making them better able to attack, it is a very sensible policy
and is favourable. But if you translate that into the context
of downtown Liverpool or downtown Glasgow, where there is already
a dearth of jobs, are you not making the situation worse by getting
people more job ready? Is this all we are going to get? Is there
another part of this in the policy coming later? Okay, maybe you
cannot do it all at once, but are supply side measures enough
to tackle the totality of the area that we are trying to address?
(Mr Smith) Of course, what we are doing on the supply
side and enhancing employability and reforming the welfare system,
sits alongside our macro-economic policies and the commitment
we have to creating stable conditions for businesses to plan,
and invest, independence of the Bank of England, low and stable
inflation, interest rates coming from. That side of the picture,
as you will understand, is enormously important as far as job
generation is concerned. I would say—and there is never
any room for complacency in these areas—that on the evidence
to date, I believe that the Government has a good record on the
number of jobs which have become available, which is why we have
a record number of people in work. The second comment I would
make is on the evidence we have from the New Deals. So far there
is remarkably little correlation—there is some but it is
small—between the state of the local labour market and the
success of different New Deal units of delivery in helping people
into jobs. The third thing I would say is that I believe that
there are indirect macro-economic benefits from these sort of
supply side reforms. This is because what has happened in the
past is that with successive downturns—we all know how Britain
suffered from the extremes of the economic cycle—these have
left more and more people really effectively not part of the labour
market, and that has had macro-economic consequences as far as
how early inflationary pressure emerges during an upturn. I do
see, from the New Deals and the wider agenda of welfare reform
and connecting people to opportunities in the labour markets and
other skilling, that it is possible for us to have a higher level
of employment consistent with any given amount of inflation.
238. That is all fine, and it does not surprise
me you say that. However, let me put another question. Supposing
the pilot period did throw up the fact that there could be a case
for very specifically targeted job creation prospects and initiatives
to complement the work that this is all doing, are there circumstances
where the Government has at least contemplated that?
(Mr Smith) Of course, again there are other strands
to our programmes like the New Deal for communities, the way in
which the Single Regeneration Budget is used, the use of European
and Social Funds, other local authority funds, which can enhance,
if you like, these supply side measures. There is the development
of intermediate labour market opportunities. There is what we
are doing on employment zones. In selecting the areas to be fully-fledged
employment zones, we were guided by those local authority districts
which had the highest level of unemployment and the lowest level
of employment; so I would argue that there is extra targeted help
available in those areas where the labour market is hardest.
239. Thank you. I wonder if I could now ask
a different type of question, which is about concentration on
work. One of the things that some of the disability organisations
and Gingerbread, the group looking after the interests of lone
parents, have been asking is, if we are concentrating on the focus
of work, some of their clients are only being able to contemplate
work after quite a long process. They are worried that people
are counting off the jobs that have been created and that the
success of the project is being measured simply on that test.
That would concern them. Can you say anything to reassure them
about that?
(Ms Eagle) It is not going to be measured simply on
that test. That is the first thing to say. We are going to develop
methods of assessment, which also involve assessing people who
have become more employable or moved closer to the labour market.
Our only method and definition of success is not going to be:
we have got them all immediately into jobs. This is not a realistic
way of dealing with some of the clients that we will be dealing
with in the new ONE service. We are very acutely aware that people
with disabilities who have wanted to work may have been out of
the labour market for a long time and have a particular disadvantage
which we will have to try to tackle. Similarly, with lone parents.
So when we have the work-focused interview part of the process,
this is going to involve talks about barriers to work and strategies
for overcoming them. That kind of positive input is wholly beneficial
and should not be seen as a threat at all. We are not going to
be so crude as to measure the applicant only as a job and any
kind of job. We are going to look at sustainable employment and
moving groups closer to the labour market.
(Mr Smith) Could I add very briefly to that, that
whilst this is a work- focused interview, operating in the way
Angela has described, we do want this also to be a gateway to
other opportunities for enhancing independence, which might simply
be employability in the long-term. For example, lone parents
with small children might say that their priority is to stay at
home to look after the children. Fine. What I want the interviewer
to be able to do is to point them towards community reading schemes,
for example, where they can work with their children for their
education.
1 Note by Witness: These dates are when information
will be available internally. We will aim to make results available
as soon as possible. It takes approximately 8 weeks to publish
reports. Dates may be subject to adjustment following discussions
with contractors commissioned to undertake work. Back
|
