Mr.
Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks
and his implicit acceptance that we are subjecting this aspect to
proper parliamentary scrutiny. I have, at least, got half a
point—which is half a point more than I have sometimes been
credited with after much longer consideration of other Bills.
The Minister
will accept that at the outset we were trying to select some of the
things which we thought were most important for affirmative resolution
debate. I want to say very gently, without wishing to dislodge any good
spirit, that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Secretary of
State making a decision, but it is not always the case that we agree
with what the Secretary of State decides; we hope we do in this case.
In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Meg
Munn: I beg to move amendment 73, in
clause 1, page 2, line 40, at
end insert—
‘(8A) Regulations under this section must
make provision to ensure that
providers— (a) submit to
the Secretary of State data showing the number of participants with a
disability at every state of the scheme by impairment
category; (b) are required to
show how they will meet the needs of participants with particular
disabilities.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 74, in
clause 1, page 3, line 21, at
end insert— ‘(1A) For the
purposes of, or in connection with, any scheme within section 17A(1)
the Secretary of State shall review data showing the number of
participants with a disability at every stage of the scheme by
impairment
category.’.
Meg
Munn: The amendments are very simple. They seek to explore
how the proposals may impact on disabled people. We know that these
people, generally, are one of the groups most excluded from the work
force. Only 49 per cent. of disabled people and only 17 per
cent. of people with learning disabilities are in work. That suggests
that the failure is largely that of the workplace and not of disabled
people.
The
amendments seek to ensure careful consideration of the impact of the
proposals on disabled people. I am grateful to Mencap for its briefing
on this matter. There is a concern that such measures may be introduced
as a consequence of factors outside the control of individual disabled
people, such as failure by the flexible new deal provider, or the
unwillingness of employers to take on, and acknowledge that there are
problems in relation to, those people. The DWP’s impact
assessment on this proposal
stated: “This
policy proposal is expected to have a greater impact on people with a
disability as they are more likely to reach the end of Flexible New
Deal without having moved into
employment.” I
am seeking reassurances in relation to this whole area that this issue
will be properly monitored, that providers will have to provide
information about people with specific disabilities, whether learning
or physical, and that these issues will be properly looked at by the
relevant Minister so that the impact of these important changes on the
way we deal with these issues is properly examined, on the basis that
people with disabilities face particular barriers.
To sum up, I
am essentially seeking to ensure that it is possible to identify what
is happening to disabled people as a result of the changes, and to
ensure that their specific needs are recognised in the
future. Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood.
Although I
share the sentiments that inspired the amendment, I have a concern
about it. I, too, looked at the excellent briefing note from Mencap,
which covers the use of providers and relates to some of the evidence
that we heard from Ministers. We have spoken about the black box
concept—the concept of letting providers go off and deliver what
they are supposed to do to get people into work. The concern is that if
one says that those providers have to provide a detailed raft of
information to the Department, which inevitably means that the
Department is going to take action as a result
of that information, one is in danger, if one is not careful, of
effectively having the Department micro-manage what the providers are
doing. I am not sure whether that is the right solution. Nevertheless,
the hon. Lady has drawn attention to a genuine concern. The way to
tackle that, when one is getting providers to get people into work, is
to look at the needs of individuals and the fee that the providers
receive. If providers are paid a flat fee, there is exactly the danger
that she suggests: those who require more help and support to get into
work may well be neglected. If, however, the fee reflects the amount of
work that will be needed to get someone into work, it ensures that
those people who have a greater requirement for help and support will
get it. That would be a better solution than the amendments that the
hon. Lady is proposing. However, like her, I will listen with great
interest to what the Minister has to say, to see whether he will
reflect on the point that I have made. If he will not, her proposals
may actually have some
merit.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan
Shaw): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Hood. We look forward to your guidance during our
proceedings.
I welcome the
amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley.
She raised the same point during the oral evidence hearings, and we had
some brief discussions on the issue. I also welcome the comments by the
hon. Member for Forest of Dean. What we are hoping to achieve—I
am sure that there is agreement across the House on this—is to
provide help to those who are furthest from the labour market. In
particular, people with learning difficulties have stubbornly remained
furthest from the labour market for far too long. My hon. Friend and
the hon. Gentleman, along with many of us, will have seen excellent
examples of innovative programmes that have provided real jobs for
people with learning difficulties. One of those—I am sure that
she is aware of it—is Project Search, which we are piloting at
Norfolk and Norwich hospital and Leicester city council. It is an
exemplary project, providing good training, job coaches and assistance
to those people—people who seemingly could not find work but
have found work.
I would like
to address the point that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean raised
about this black box. We do not want to be so specific that we dictate
the parameters within which providers assist people with learning
disabilities to find employment. To date, that has not worked. We are
not in the position to be able to say that what we have done so far,
universally, has worked for people with learning disabilities. We can
certainly point to some good examples and, as is often the case with
public policy, where we see good things working we just want that to be
spread across the board, but delivering that is always the frustration
for policy makers, whether nationally or locally.
In terms of
the people that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley
referred to—the risk assessment of people with learning
disabilities, or people with disabilities—it is likely to be
those people who come to the end of the flexible new deal and have not
found employment. She is right to highlight that, and I can give her
some assurances with regards to what we intend to do at that
point.
We intend that
the Jobcentre Plus personal adviser will review, in partnership with
providers, every case in which someone reaches the end of the flexible
new deal without finding sustained work, Mr. Hood. This is
to ensure we have a clear idea of the barriers and circumstances that
an individual faces—you will hear that word repeatedly
throughout our proceedings because it is about tailoring our support
and resources to individuals—and will act as a safeguard to
ensure that only those who are capable of working will be referred to
this programme.
We
acknowledge that some jobseekers have particular circumstances that we
need to consider as we design the programme and the way it operates.
That is why we intend that the “work for your benefit”
programme will offer personalised and tailored support. We will
incorporate appropriate safeguards to ensure that the work experience
offered is suitable and relevant to an individual’s
circumstances, in the way that the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested
earlier. People with disabilities who have restrictions within their
jobseeker’s agreement relating to the days and hours they must
be available to work, will also be able to apply those restrictions to
participation in the “work for your benefit” programme.
Similarly, any restrictions in jobseeker’s agreement on the type
of work a person is available for will also apply. It is not our
intention that people will be required to participate in activities
that are unsuitable and inappropriate to their personal
circumstances.
We expect our
suppliers to be exemplary in meeting their duties under the Disability
Discrimination Act 2005, including the disability equality
duty. This aims to ensure that all bodies actively promote equality for
disabled people when providing a service on behalf of the Secretary of
State. The contract for the “work for your benefit”
programme will require suppliers to support the Secretary of State in
his duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. The
DWP’s contract management arrangements will monitor delivery in
that regard, and customers will have the opportunity to discuss any
problems with their jobseeker advisers. As my hon. Friend is aware, we
will be piloting those. It is important that we monitor the
effectiveness of this, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister for
Employment and Welfare Reform said, we do not want any undue
specificity. Is that correct?
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful. We do not want a list because
there would be an inevitable discussion about who is on it and who is
not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley will be aware of
that from her time as a Minister. We want the flexibility that the hon.
Member for Forest of Dean referred to, so that we can see a step change
in the pool of talent among people with learning disabilities. We have
seen such people providing excellent work and being assets to the
organisations they work
for. 11.45
am
Mr.
Harper: I am grateful for the Minister’s comments
so far, but he has not addressed the issue I raised on differential
fees for the rewards paid to providers. I know that the Department is
thinking about that idea and will pilot it. My concern is that if
providers are paid a flat fee for every person they try to get into
work, so that the fee structure does not reflect the amount of
help and support required, there is a danger that certain categories of
people will be neglected, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley
suggested. It might be too late if they have to wait until they fail to
get a new job under the flexible new deal. Will the Minister say a
little on the Department’s plans for differential
fees?
Jonathan
Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up
on that important point. There has been concern over cherry-picking,
not just under this provision, but under our supported employment
programme. We do not want to see cherry-picking. Under this programme,
we will develop a payment and contracts model to minimise that risk. We
are also exploring the new personalised employment programme and the
new accelerator funding model. This is another example of where we are
running pilots so that we get things right. I am sure he will agree
that we must balance value for money with the personalised, tailored
programmes that will provide success for the individual in gaining
employment. Following
those remarks and my assurances to my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Heeley and the Committee, I hope that she will feel able to
withdraw the
amendment.
Meg
Munn: The last thing I want to see is micro-management;
that is not the right way forward. I wanted reassurance that there will
be proper monitoring and evaluation; without that, I fear that we will
continue to see disabled people disadvantaged. I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for mentioning the disability equality duty. As he has reassured
me that there will be management arrangements for proper monitoring and
evaluation of the issues I have raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Clappison: This is the appropriate moment to raise
one matter with the Minister. As was the case with the proposals that
we brought out before this programme, it is important to bear in mind
that the “work for your benefit” scheme will not kick in
initially with a jobseeker’s claim, but only after a
jobseeker’s claim has been extant for a considerable period. As
I understand the Government proposal, it must be at least two years
from the beginning of the jobseeker’s claim and after a year of
job search followed by a year on the flexible new
deal. The
commencement of the “work for your benefit” programme is
tied to the beginning of the flexible new deal. We understand from the
December 2008 White Paper that the programme is due to be piloted from
2010. It
states: “The
pilots will start in 2010, in line with the first people completing 12
months on Flexible New
Deal.” As
Committee members may recollect, the flexible new deal is not expected
to commence until 1 October 2009. As we speak, the end stage of the
tendering process is subject to delays. What is the implication of this
for the “work for your benefit” scheme? Is the
“work for your benefit” scheme still tied to the flexible
new deal? Is it therefore likely to be affected by the circumstances
that are apparently causing some turbulence in the flexible new deal
tendering process?
Mr.
McNulty: Briefly, the answer to the perfectly fair
question is probably yes and no. Yes, in the sense that of course it is
inextricably linked with the flexible new deal. And, notwithstanding
periods of reflection and turbulence, there is no proposal to do
anything other than bring in the flexible new deal by October 2009. The
two are inextricably linked. For reference, and no more, we have asked
the healthy list of providers who bid for the flexible new deal to
revisit some of their assumptions. The original assumption was for a
cohort of 100,000 long-term unemployed. We have now asked them to look
at a range from 100,000 to 300,000. So it is a live contract process
which, unlike this legislation, is very much connected with the
economic downturn. Yes, the two are linked but no, at this stage there
are no plans other than to pursue the start date for the flexible new
deal of 1 October. In that context I commend the clause to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
