The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Peter
Atkinson
Alexander,
Danny
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD)
Cable,
Dr. Vincent
(Twickenham)
(LD)
Clapham,
Mr. Michael
(Barnsley, West and Penistone)
(Lab)
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
Efford,
Clive
(Eltham)
(Lab)
Greenway,
Mr. John
(Ryedale)
(Con)
Hepburn,
Mr. Stephen
(Jarrow)
(Lab)
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's
Household)
Hoyle,
Mr. Lindsay
(Chorley)
(Lab)
Keeley,
Barbara
(Worsley)
(Lab)
Key,
Robert
(Salisbury)
(Con)
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew
(Croydon, Central)
(Con)
Plaskitt,
Mr. James
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and
Pensions)
Selous,
Andrew
(South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Vaz,
Keith
(Leicester, East)
(Lab)
Vis,
Dr. Rudi
(Finchley and Golders Green)
(Lab)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 26
March
2007
[Mr.
Peter Atkinson
in the
Chair]
Draft Jobseekers Allowance (Jobseeker Mandatory Activity) Pilot Regulations 2007
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mr. James Plaskitt):
I beg to move,
That the Committee
has considered the draft Jobseekers Allowance (Jobseeker
Mandatory Activity) Pilot Regulations
2007.
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship on this spring afternoon,
Mr. Atkinson, and I welcome the opportunity to introduce
this debate. The regulations use the power contained in section 29 of
the Jobseekers Act 1995, which enables regulations to be made in order
to pilot changes, but limits the duration of such regulations to 12
months. At the end of that period, the regulations may be replaced, if
appropriate, by similar provisions that extend for a further 12
months.
I introduced
the pilot scheme in Committee on 7 December 2005 by way of the
Jobseekers Allowance (Jobseeker Mandatory Activity) Pilot
Regulations 2005. At that time, I indicated that the pilot would last
for two years commencing in April 2006, and that it would be necessary
to submit further regulations to enable the pilot to be completed. That
is why the regulations are before us today; they will enable the pilot
to continue as planned for the further 12-month
period.
The need for
and objectives of the pilot remain unchanged since the Committee
considered and endorsed the previous regulations in December 2005. Most
jobseekers find work in well under six months. However, research
evidence suggests that self-confidence and the drive to find work begin
to tail off sharply for jobseekers who are still without work after six
months. The new deal programmes that have been so beneficial in helping
many people to move into work assist mainly those who have been out of
work for more than 18 months. The present pilot is intended to test
whether an earlier interventionat the six-month stage for
jobseekers aged 25 and overwould prove beneficial and increase
the flow of jobseekers into
work.
The pilot
provides two main activities for jobseekers who have been claiming
benefit and seeking work for more than six months. The first is a
three-day motivational course delivered by external organisations under
contract to the Department for Work and Pensions. The course focuses on
examining job aspirations and motivation, and emphasises rights and
responsibilities. It focuses also on finding routes into work and on
job-search skills. All jobseekers leave the course with an action plan
that is focused on their ongoing commitment to gaining employment. The
second activity consists of three follow-up interviews that are carried
out by Jobcentre Plus personal advisers in their offices. The advisers
encourage jobseekers to use their agreed action plans to focus their
activity on seeking
work.
I
understand that, after a period of out of work, some jobseekers might
be concerned about their ability to adjust to new types of work,
working practices or working environments. It is therefore important
that all eligible jobseekers take this opportunity to avail themselves
of the practical assistance that is available to them through the
pilot. The regulations therefore make it mandatory for eligible
jobseekers to participate in the programme provided for them. A
one-week sanction is applied for each failure to attend either the
course or any of the three follow-up interviews. A one-week sanction is
considered appropriate to the short duration of the pilot programme,
rather than the longer sanctions for non-attendance that apply to other
parts of the new deal programme. Safeguards are already in place to
ensure that those who have good cause for failing to participate are
not sanctioned. Jobseekers will have the standard right to
reconsideration of and appeal against any sanction decision.
The pilot has
now operated for a little less than one year. It is important that we
do not terminate it prematurely, before we have sufficient data to make
well founded judgments about its success or otherwise, and there are
not sufficient data yet. Detailed evaluation, both qualitative and
quantitative, continues. We expect to publish a report of the
qualitative evaluation in July 2008, following publication of the
report covering quantitative evaluation, which we anticipate will be
ready in the months before then. The results of the pilot will be used
to inform future policy development and any decision on whether such
activity is of sufficient value to justify its introduction
nationally.
Initial
qualitative evaluation evidence suggests the following. Jobseekers have
most valued the practical support provided to them during the three-day
courses. That has included help with writing their CVs, preparing for
interviews and writing application letters. Many jobseekers feel that
the action plans have helped to increase their self-confidence and have
improved their motivation to find work. Our planned quantitative
evaluation will identify appropriate comparison groups to the pilot
areas and compare the off-flow rates of the pilot and control groups.
We shall focus on the immediate destinations of claimants after they
leave benefit.
The
pilot utilises resources in both the public and private sectors to
ensure that jobseekers are provided with high-quality assistance to
help them find work. That is an example of the Governments
determination to develop the most effective manner of delivering public
services. We have consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee
regarding the draft regulations, and it advised that it did not wish to
have them formally referred. I am also satisfied that the regulations
are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
I hope that I have been able to
explain clearly the purpose and scope of the regulations. They will
enable an important pilot to continue to its conclusion and facilitate
a full evaluation thereafter. On those grounds, I commend them to the
Committee.
4.37
pm
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure
to welcome you to the Chair on this fine, early spring afternoon,
Mr. Atkinson. I also thank the Minister for his introductory
remarks.
It is
slightly odd that the Committee is being asked to grant another
years running time for the pilot without any feedback at all on
what has happened in the past year. We know from the acerbic probing of
my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench
spokesman when the draft regulations were taken through another place
on 15 March that some 16,000 people have been through the JMA
pilots in the 10 areas to which the Minister referred. We also know
from the report of that Committee in the Lords that 111 sanctions have
been applied. We can therefore see straight away that a pretty small
number of sanctions have been applied, as a percentage of the total
number of people who have been through the course. I have no problem at
all with a regime of sanctions. Where the state is paying someone money
and trying to help them get back into work, an element of sanction is
fine in respect of the balance of rights and the responsibilities of
the state in its relationship with the citizen, provided that it is
applied sensitively and intelligently, and focuses on the individual
needs of the jobseeker
concerned.
I have a
number of general questions to which I should be grateful for a
response from the Minister. In a sense, the whole policy debate has
moved on a little since the pilot scheme was introduced in December
2005, particularly given the report of David Freuds review, on
which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a statement to
the House earlier this month. My first question for the Minister is:
why is this type of work not being done on day one? Why are we waiting
six months? He has told us that the data show that six months is the
point at which the off-flow from JSA begins to plateau and people
appear not to find work so easily. However, page 127 of the Leitch
review, which reported in December last year,
states:
Around
two thirds of all JSA claims each year are repeat
claims.
The Secretary of
State, too, has told us in the House that the Department intends to
focus more specifically on trying to help people to stay in jobs. It is
a waste of everyones time if there is churn whereby people go
into a job for two or three months, lose their employment and
re-present as a JSA claimant. It is disillusioning for the worker
concerned and causes extra work and administration for the
Department.
In
relation to that churn and the six-month start date, why is the
Department not looking at those people on day one to assess some of
their basic skills needs? It seems perverse that the Department can pay
JSA for six months without being aware before the end of that period
that the person perhaps cannot read or add up to a sufficient level to
hold down a job. That person might be getting a job for a few months,
losing it and then re-presenting as a JSA claimant. I would be grateful
if the Minister could address the point about churn and explain why we
have the six-month wait, particularly if the Department is unaware of
basic skills needs until then.
My second point relates to the
content of the three-day courses. We know that quite a lot of money has
been spent; in the Hansard from the other place, it is stated
that it was about £3.5 million. Some 16,000 people have been
through the courses, so roughly £220 is being spent on each
person. That is a not inconsiderable sum at just under £80 or so
a day for each person. Clearly, good and useful things are being
taught, such as motivational technique, preparing CVs and interview
technique, but my question returns to my earlier point about basic
skills. Page 2 of the guidance notes issued to JSA districts speaks
about training being provided, without being specific. Will it be
possible to provide some basic skills training? Would that be
identified during the three-day course, and could someone be
helpedor start to be helpedwith basic skills provision
if that is what they
lacked?
I want to
press the Minister on whether a slightly more flexible approach could
be tried in the remaining time for the pilot. We know from the guidance
notes that JSA districts are looking ideally for groups of 12 people to
go through the courses. Those 12 people might have vastly different
needs. They might need help in different areas and there is a danger
that what is appropriate for some people will not be appropriate for
others, and therefore might not lead to the increase in motivation that
the Department wants. What provision is there for flexibility? For
example, could people be assessed at the start of the course, separated
into different rooms and broken down into smaller groups of people with
similar needs? That would be useful and would be along the lines that
the Secretary of State suggested he wanted to follow when he responded
to the question on his statement asked by the hon. Member for
Twickenham. I refer to column 1292 of the Official Report of 5
March.
Lastly, it so
happens that one of the pilots is taking place in my constituency; I
spoke to someone at my local office about it a week or so ago and was
kindly provided with a bit of briefing on what had happened so far in
the Bedfordshire district. The briefing described the management of
unco-operative and disruptive behaviour as a key
challenge. I should be grateful if the Minister said a little
about that; it may well relate to my earlier point about the need to
break down groups of 12 or more to deal with individual issues. The
preliminary evaluation also commented that there was reluctance to
acknowledge weaknesses, especially in the presence of other men. We can
all understand that. None of us likes to be shown up in front of our
peers; that can be embarrassing or
difficult.
4.46
pm
Dr.
Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. I apologise for
having missed the first couple of minutes of the Ministers
opening speech.
Like
the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, I have no objection to the
order or to the principle of sanctions that underlies it; they seem
entirely right in principle. However, the issue centres on how the
system has been administered. The hon. Gentleman made the two key
points about flexibility and content, and was kind enough to refer to
the question that I put to the Secretary of State following his
statement on the Freud
report. The Secretary of State invited me to write to him with case
studies on how inflexibility and poor content are occurring in
practice. I have done so, but it might be useful to go over one or two
of the instances that illustrate the difference between aspirations at
Government level and the often foolish insistence on procedure at local
level, which effectively disqualifies much of the benefit of the
programme.
My
first case involves someone who came to see me a few weeks ago. She was
a high-powered personal assistant who had been made redundant from her
job in central London. She was trying to get back into the labour
market and knew exactly what she needed to do. She had a perfectly
professional CV and had to be a bit selective or she would not have had
the salary to pay her housing costs. She was highly motivated and
professionally organised.
The lady in question was sent
on a mandatory course of the kind that we are discussing and came to me
not because she wanted me to do anything but simply to remonstrate
about the sheer waste of resources involved. She was put in a class,
from which she got no benefit, with somebody from the building
tradean industry that does not use CVs; building
sub-contractors operate through word of mouth and the use of skills. A
couple of other people in the class did not speak a word of English and
did not understand what was going on. Of course, the private providers
were getting their fee from the Government, but the people on the
course derived no benefit from it.
Andrew
Selous:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the name of the
training provider in his area? In mine, it is a company called Seetec.
Is it the same as the one in his area? Perhaps we could compare notes
on how training providers are
coping.
Dr.
Cable:
I cannot confirm whether it is the same; in the
absence of clear evidence, I shall not libel that company.
The second case was slightly
different but illustrates the lack of flexibility in the system. A
woman who had been unemployed for some time was trying to get back into
the labour market by building up a portfolio of part-time jobs. She had
signed on not to get JSA but to continue payment of her national
insurance. She was told that to continue to qualify, she needed to go
on a mandatory course. The problem was that she had already built up
about eight to 10 hours of child-minding work, which she did part-time
to get income. She was allowed to do so under benefit rules. She was
told that she had to go on the course and said, Well, there is
a problem: how can I come on the course when I have responsibility to
the parents of the children whom I look after part-time? The
answer was, Sorry, you have to give up your child-minding work
to attend the course. We cannot be flexible. She also said to
Jobcentre Plus, If I am given a job interview, can I attend? I
am keen to get out of the benefit trap and I just want to get back to
work. Again, the answer was, You must give priority to
the mandatory course over the job interview. There is a basic
lack of flexibility, and I do not know whether that is because of
national regulation or local practice, but for many people the system
is not working.
The third case was that of a
woman who came to see me at my surgery on Friday evening last week.
She, too, was a personal assistant with a good track record, and she
had been out of the labour market for quite a long time because of a
combination of redundancy, family breakdown and the usual difficulties
that people can encounter. She is now desperately keen to get back into
work, and she has a perfectly serviceable CV and knows exactly what she
has to do. She realised that her problem was a lack of IT skills, so
she asked Jobcentre Plus, Can you help me improve my IT
skills? The answer was No, we cannot help you with
that. We will send you on the mandatory course. That course was
completely irrelevant to her needs. Jobcentre Plus said that it could
not help her with the one thing that she needed but could not afford
because she no longer had any savingsan IT
course.
There are
issues on flexibility and appropriateness, but they are not being
signalled by the private providers, because they are receiving their
payments. The only way in which such issues can be signalled is through
frustrated members of the public. The fact that I have now encountered
three such people in three weeks at my surgery suggests that, even in
my area, which is by no means one of high unemployment, severe
difficulties are being experienced.
I got a sense from the
Secretary of State that he recognises that there is a problem. I am not
entirely sure how we should get around it, but I suspect that we should
allow freedom within the pilots for jobcentres to have a job adviser
who can negotiate some flexibility with claimants. Jobcentres should be
satisfied that jobseekers are making a genuine effort to find work and
can qualify for benefit, but they should allow claimants to treat the
mandatory courses flexibly and in a way that reflects calls on their
time, whether for part-time work, interviews or whatever. We should
build a bit less rigidity into the system. If that could be done, I
think that the endeavour would prove successful and popular; without
it, there is a danger of creating more problems than we are solving at
a grass-roots
level.
4.52
pm
Robert
Key (Salisbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. However, I am about to
break this afternoons happy consensus and good will, because I
remember from when the Jobseekers Act 1995 went through the House
that the regulations before us are not the kind of thing that
the Act was thought to be about. Indeed, I would go further: what we
have heard this afternoon shows us that we are considering a system
that for some does not work at all, and for others is unavailable or
inappropriate.
I shall
concentrate on the schedule to the statutory instrument. My main
problemof course, I do not want to understate it too
muchis that the system is unfair, unjust, divisive and
arbitrary. It is unfair because the 1995 Act did not envisage that only
some parts of the country would benefit from the Act and from schemes
and regulations flowing from it. It is unjust, because things are fine
for people lucky enough to live in one of the pilot areas, while people
just over the border lose out completely. It is divisive because there
is effectively a postcode lottery; depending on
where people live they either get help or they do not. It is arbitrary
because the schedule sets out an extraordinary list of places where the
scheme is being tried, ranging from the leafy suburbs of Berkshire,
Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey and Sussex to very deprived areas
elsewhere in the United
Kingdom.
It is all
right if one is the hon. Member for Twickenham or indeed my hon. Friend
the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, who happen to have such schemes
in their constituencies. However, the constituents of all those silent
hon. Members here who have not yet spoken this afternoonfor
example, the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East, for Jarrow, of all
places, for Nottingham, East, for Finchley and Golders Green and for
Barnsley, West and Penistonewill, like mine, receive no benefit
whatever from the scheme. That is arbitrary, so I should like to ask
the Minister on what basis the list in schedule was drawn up, because
it is not in the spirit of the 1995 Act at all.
One could not claim
that the scheme was poverty-focused. It clearly is not, if it focuses
on employment-rich parts of the country. One could not say that it
focused only on deprived wards, because it clearly does not. On the
other hand, only last week I received a letter from a Minister pointing
out that one of the most deprived wards in the country is in my
constituency and offering Government assistance for the installation of
cash machines, to make cash more available in dispersed communities in
rural Wiltshire. Also, many of the constituencies that are not in the
scheme have low density populations, high transport costs and, in
dispersed rural areas, little public transport available. That is
specifically what the regulations are supposed to
address.
In addition,
the Department has in many instances made matters hugely worse, such as
in reorganising assistance to small business employers. The removal of
Business Link from my constituency to Bristol, for example, is a move
in exactly the opposite direction from what the policies are supposed
to address, so I am very loth indeed to give the regulations a fair
wind. It will have to be said that the Committee has considered them.
As part of that consideration, I have sought to illustrate briefly that
there is a big downside to the policies that the Government are
pursuing. My constituents and those of other hon. Members present are
the recipients of the downside of the 1995 Act and the regulations.
Will the Minister therefore at least seek to justify the apparently
arbitrarily choice of Jobcentre Plus areas that are to be the
beneficiaries of the
regulations?
I have an
extremely high regard for the people who work in the jobcentres in my
constituency. For more than a quarter of a century, they have built up
expertise in dealing with precisely those difficult cases that the
regulations are an attempt to address. I refer in particular to the
mobile populations, otherwise known as the Travellers, who have made
life hell for some of the jobcentre employees over the past 25 years. I
have the highest regard for the people throughout the country who work
in difficult jobcentres. When I was a Minister I visited them in
north-west Englandin Manchester and the towns round about, for
exampleand saw that they had to have armed protection. The new
policy is to remove that and to make the offices open plan. I hope that
that works, but those employees
do frightening jobs for little money. I do not think that the
regulations will help either the people working for Jobcentre Plus or
the apparent beneficiaries, so I am deeply sceptical. However, at the
end of the day, it will undeniably be true that the Committee has
considered the
regulations.
4.58
pm
Mr.
Plaskitt:
We were doing so well until we got to the hon.
Member for Salisbury. I shall deal with his points first and then with
the contributions of thehon. Members for South-West
Bedfordshire and for
Twickenham.
The 1995
Act specifically gives us the power to pilot, and that is what we are
doing. I suggest to the hon. Member for Salisbury that a prudent way to
proceed when we are looking to make further refinements and
improvements in Jobcentre Plus or the new deal is, first of all, to
pilot schemes. The prudent thing to do is to see what schemes are like
in practice. In this case we chose to pilot the schemes in a variety of
areas, ensuring as far as possible that that variety covered different
types of employment area, to give a fairly thorough cross-section of
the UK. That is why the project was not concentrated in areas that one
might think of as areas of high unemployment. In some of the areas in
the scheme, which are quite wide areas, there are pockets of
unemployment, as I think mightbe the case in the hon.
Gentlemans constituency,with people experiencing quite
lengthy periods of unemployment. Although an area might look leafy, as
he might say, there could be found within it issues of long-term
unemployment. It is as important to address problems in such places as
it is elsewhere in the country, not withstanding the fact that overall
long-term unemployment is a lot lower than before we
startedthankfully.
A
final reason for choosing the areasthis might help the hon.
Gentleman, and it sits alongside the reason that I just gaveis
that quite a lot of different pilots are running across Jobcentre Plus
already. We want to share them around. Some of the areas suggested
themselves because they were not operating others pilots on other
reforms.
Robert
Key:
I am grateful to the Minister for the calm and
measured way in which he is responding to my diatribe, but I should
point out that, in spite of what he just said, this statutory
instrument does not provide for a single pilot scheme in any of the
counties of the south-west economic region or the Government office for
the south-westneither Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset,
Dorset, Devon, Cornwall nor Bristol. There is not one in the whole
south-west.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
That might well be because we are running other
pilots in that region and could not load this scheme on top of other
pilots. Staff in Jobcentre Plus offices in the hon. Gentlemans
region might be undertaking other forums. I hope that he would agree,
therefore, that there are sound reasons for taking the piloting
approach. I tried to explain why the allocation is as it is. I hope
that he accepts that when considering a change on this scale it is
important to test the ground
before rolling out a scheme nationally. I think that if we did not test
it we would be subject to some poignant
criticism.
I shall
turn now to the points raised by the hon. Members for South-West
Bedfordshire and for Twickenham. The former said that we are seeking
from the Committee a renewal for the scheme on the basis of no feedback
at allI think that that is what he said. That is not quite
accurate. In my opening speech, I indicated some such feedback, but I
am happy to elaborate if he would like me to. As I think he will have
learned in his own area, the provisional evaluation found that many
respondents thought that the length of the course was about right,
which is obviously encouraging.
We heard also from the feedback
that the diversity within the groups is an issue, as the hon. Member
for Twickenham mentioned. That is precisely the sort of thing that we
need to pick up from pilots before we consider rolling out the scheme,
and I shall say a bit more about diversity within the groups in just a
moment. The provisional evaluation found also that the practical
support offered by the courses is valued by those attending them. We
are getting confirmation that the action planning process gives many
customers a sense of ownership of their plan, and so is improving their
self-confidence and motivation.
At the moment, that evaluation
is provisional, but it is encouraging and goes counter to some of the
reservations that the hon. Member for Twickenham heard about in his
constituency. Those need to be laid in the balance. I think that he
cited the experiences of three constituents, as against all those who
have been through the programmeabout 17,500 to date and
possibly as many as 70,000 by the time the two-year pilot is finished.
There is bound to be a mix of experiences. Some will have had problems,
but we have had encouraging results as well. However, we need the two
years and a full evaluationqualitive and
quantitivebefore learning from it and deciding on any scheme of
this nature that could be rolled out
nationally.
Andrew
Selous:
It would be helpful to the Committee if the
Minister reflected on some of the individual case studies given by the
hon. Member for Twickenham, who has the advantage over me; although I
am lucky enough to have one of the pilots in my area, none of my
constituents has come to tell me good or bad things about it. The hon.
Gentleman raised some valid points, and I would hate to think that the
scheme was merely going to chug on for the remainder of its second year
without taking into account some of the points that have been raised at
this halfway
stage.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not do
chugging. The point of checking things mid-term and doing the
evaluation is to learn from the pilots. We certainly do not want to
plough on regardless. We are heeding what we learn, and that is the
point of the exercise. I shall say more in a moment about some of the
things that we have
found.
The hon. Member
for South-West Bedfordshire also asked why we should intervene at six
months and not
earlier. Let me reassure him that 80 per cent. of JSA claimants find
work in less than six months. In fact, the average duration on JSA is
far less. The vast majority are not on the benefit for any longer than
necessary, and they find work within a reasonable space of time.
Research shows that those who are on the benefit for six months or
longer will begin to encounter a decline in personal esteem and
self-confidence. The evidence suggests that that is the appropriate
point at which to seek intervention. To do so earlier in significant
numbers would be an unnecessary additional intervention because, as I
say, the vast majority get off the benefit and move into
work.
The hon.
Gentleman went on to ask why we did not give such support earlier. In
fact, we do. It is important to stress that claimants are given job
advice as soon as they come forward to claim JSA. Their basic skills
are assessed at the outset, they submit to a job-search review every
two weeks and 13 weeks into the claim there is a more intensive review
with an adviser to assess the individuals position in respect
of the benefit and their attempted job
search.
Andrew
Selous:
I am grateful to the Minister, but I am having a
little difficulty in reconciling what he has told the Committee with
what Lord Leitch published in his report in December, in which he talks
about
a new programme to
screen all benefit claimants for basic skills needs. This screening is
currently done at the six month point of a
claim.
Can the Minister
say a little more on the point about the churn? I am concerned that
people who cannot read or count are getting jobs. He is right on that
point. I think that the Department is worried about the dead-weight
costs, but it should be part of the skills agenda, joining up with the
Department for Education and Skills so that people are not in the
system for six months when they could be helped sooner to read and to
gain basic maths skills.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The hon. Gentleman is right. That is very much
the point that is emphasised by Leitch. That is why we asked him to
consider the issue. It is right to join up the services. I was merely
trying to correct the impression that I thought the hon. Gentleman
gave, which I understood to mean that there was nothing in the way of
establishing the basic skills level of an applicant when they came
forward for JSA. I do not think that that is accurate. That does not
mean that more cannot be done, and that is the agenda that comes from
Leitch. However, it is not true that nothing is done to assess the
basic skills or job-search attributes that JSA claimants might
need.
The hon.
Gentleman went on to discuss the important issue of the content of the
courses under the pilot. He made some fair points and asked some good
questions. Of course, the individuals referred on to the courses have a
great variety of background skills and aptitudes. One of the initial
evaluation points that comes back to us from providers is that if the
classes or sessions are done with large groups, the problem is how to
pitch what is offered in a way that is suitable for someone who might
have profound barriers to seeking work as well as someone who has high
employability skills but other reasons for having been on JSA for a
long time. Of course, that point is right; otherwise, it
would be like trying to teach a mixed-age class of 50 students
in a school. That would not be
achievable.
The eight
providers are approaching the issue in different ways; a mixed approach
is being offered. That is good in a way because it will give us many
different experiences from which to make the evaluations. There is not
just one way. We are finding that providers that subdivide their groups
to create much smaller sessions do better targeted work. One provider
has subdivided down to groups of three; the training is not all being
done in large groups as part of a one-size-fits-all offer.
Dr.
Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): How do the
providers get paid? Do the clients pay them or is it contractual? Are
contracts in certain areas different from those in other
areas?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The providers have a contract with us at the
Department for Work and Pensions and are paid for each individual who
completes the course at an average fee of about
£200.
Dr.
Vis:
In view of what the hon. Member for Twickenham said,
may I ask another question? If the providers are paid through a
contract with the Department, are they inflexible or is what is being
put to them
inflexible?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
What we are putting to them is certainly not in
any way inflexible. What we are aiming to achieve through the pilots is
clear in the contract, which is drawn in such a way as to encourage
providers to make different kinds of offers. We will learn more from
piloting if we can consider different ways in which the training has
been done. There is a clear objective and the structure is
clearthere is a three-day course and a fortnightly follow-up
interview. Everybody has to comply with that. However, there are
different ways of training within the individual offers of the
individual contractorsdifferent skills sets and different
approaches are used. Some providers do cognitive work with people and
some do far more practical work based on job-search approaches. That is
useful for us because we can measure the different responses to
different ways of doing the programme and delivering the
course.
That brings me
to the points made by the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire and
for Twickenham about the importance of flexibility. I am sure that
after two years of piloting we shall know a
great deal more about how much flexibility and tailoring we can build in
so that we can achieve our objective of getting more people who would
otherwise find it difficult to come off benefit and get into work to do
so. A substantial degree of tailoring will be
important.
Dr.
Cable:
I do not want to set the three individual cases
that I mentioned against the sample of 17,000 or so that the Minister
has; I want to talk about some of the systemic issues. Is it the demand
of the Department or the individual providers that people must
sacrifice job interviews or part-time work to attend a mandatory
course? If so, what is the
rationale?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
No, there would not be much sense in that
arrangement and the course rules should be sufficiently flexible to
allow an individual to attend a job
interview.
I wanted to
deal with a remaining point made by the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire about disruptive behaviour. That point also came up in the
evaluations. Interestingly, however, we are hearing from the course
providers that although they encounter such behaviour in some instances
with some groups, there is not as much as they had expected. We know
that such behaviour will be an issue with some of the groups that we
are dealing with. That is anticipated. Obviously, when we considered
the award of contracts, we were looking for what providers would offer
to deal with and approach the problem. It is a tough part of the job
that we ask them to do; hopefully, however, we have taken on providers
who are skilled at handling such behaviour. The point about peer
pressure has also come back from the initial
evaluations.
I hope
that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. I confirm that
the evaluation done on the pilots is entirely independent of the
Department, and it is important to us that that evaluation should be as
thorough as possible. We are satisfied that the pilots are an important
exercise and that they should continue. I hope that they will do so and
that the regulations will be accepted. I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Jobseekers Allowance (Jobseeker Mandatory
Activity) Pilot Regulations
2007.
Committee
rose at a quarter past Five
oclock.