Paul
Rowen: I am grateful for that clarification and beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Clappison: I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 21, page
31, line 10, at end
add— ‘(3A) Within six months
of the expiry of the specified period referred to in subsection (1),
the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a
report on the operation of the state pension credit pilot schemes
established under these
provisions.’. We
share the objective of seeking to ensure that pensioners receive what
they are entitled to, and we are aware of the issues with take-up of
pension credit which have been well ventilated on several occasions in
the past, certainly by Members on this side of the House. The purpose
of the amendment is to seek more information about how automaticity
will work in the case of pension credit, because there seems to be a
lack of specificity in some of the details in the
Bill. The
regulation-making power that the Government are taking is wide-ranging
but unspecific as to who exactly will be subject to it, other than that
automaticity will be piloted
in “one
or more specified
areas”. We
believe that the areas will be relatively small in terms of
population—around 2,000 people in each case—but the
Minister will no doubt correct us if we are wrong about that. We would
like to know whether all pensioners eligible for pension credit will be
subject to automatic payment of pension credit in the areas where it is
being piloted. If they are not, we would like to hear from the Minister
what the criteria are by which pensioners will be selected for
automatic delivery of pension credit. We wait to hear more details on
that, and if pensioners will be selected we would like to know whether
matters such as age will play a part in the
selection. We
would like to hear more details about how the piloting will work in the
pilot areas, how pensioners will be selected or whether there will be
selection at all, and when the pilots will begin and exactly how long
they will last in each
case.
Mr.
McNulty: Those are all perfectly reasonable questions. The
hon. Gentleman is right that the pilot schemes are likely to be fairly
small in scale and of limited duration. He will know that the clause
allows for regulations that will be forthcoming—we hope as soon
as possible—after Royal Assent which will discuss in detail
exactly how the pilots will work and how they will be designed and
evaluated. The
Bill refers to
“one or more
specified classes of
person” which
will allow us, following further analysis and design, to target
absolutely everyone in a small area as defined simply by age, or to
target cohorts within the group. There will subsequently be many more
details provided through regulations, and a chance through our usual
processes to discuss them
thoroughly. The
notion of automaticity is appropriate. With the best of intentions,
many people, including lobby groups, decided that it was somehow not in
their interest or in the interest of pensioners to encourage take-up
because of—quite naturally—the view that somehow pension
credit is charity, and something with which pensioners should not get
involved. The opposite is the truth, and it is an entitlement that all
pensioners should at least be able to afford themselves of. Given that
the specifics of the amendment are likely to be small in focus and
duration and that there may well be—we have yet to
determine—a series of pilots in which one pilot learns from the
other in a cumulative sort of way, the notion of putting in place a
backstop at six months is probably not the best way forward. There will
be evaluations of the pilots, which I can guarantee will be published.
Therefore, via Pepper v. Hart, the assurance that the hon.
Member for Hertsmere wants is covered in that regard. The Bill is about
securing the principle and enabling the legislation to allow us to do
that. Details of scope and duration are still to be determined, but we
can discuss them more fully in
regulation.
Mr.
Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for his
assurances. As I said in my opening remarks, we saw this as a
wide-ranging power, and the Minister’s remarks have confirmed
that. We were seeking to elicit information about it to scrutinise what
the Government are proposing. We shall continue to do so when we look
at the regulations as and when they are made. Moreover, we want to
scrutinise the evaluation of the pilot schemes as and when that is
published. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it
clear that they will be published.
On the basis
that we will know a bit more about this in the future, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
21 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
22 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
23Contracting
out functions under Jobseekers Act
1995
Paul
Rowen: I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 23,
page 33, line 3, at end
insert— ‘(d) shall specify
the level of training required to meet the needs of claimants with
mental and/or physical
disabilities, (e) shall specify
the level of training required to meet the needs of claimants with
caring responsibilities, (f)
shall specify the level of training required to meet the needs of
claimants with drug dependency and alcohol
issues, (g) shall specify the
level of training required to meet the needs of claimants who are lone
parents with dependant children,
and (h) shall specify the level
of training required to meet the needs of claimants who are lone
parents and have been victims of domestic
violence.’. In
many respects, clause 23 is at the heart of the Government’s
programme to contract out a range of services that are currently
provided by JCP staff. When considering what happens when those
contracts are made, it is very important that the staff who are
employed by the various organisations have the right levels of
qualifications. The amendment seeks to ensure that a level of training
is provided so that the staff can meet the needs of the different
claimants. Those claimants
can include people with mental or physical disabilities, with caring
responsibilities, with issues of drug and alcohol dependency, and lone
parents with dependent children and lone parents who may have been
subject to domestic violence. Those are some of the sorts of clients
that JCP staff currently deal with. If, as is envisaged in this clause,
a large number of functions will be transferred to other organisations,
we believe that it is very important that a level of training is
provided for
staff. Let
me refer Members to the briefing that has been prepared by Rethink, an
organisation that deals with mental health issues. The organisation
quotes the research of the Department for Work and Pensions that
suggests that even with pathways regimes, existing personal advisers
admit that they lack knowledge and understanding of mental health
issues. It
states: “Mental
health issues (including depression, suicide and self harm)...were
particular areas (Incapacity benefit personal advisers (IBPAs))
reported having difficulties with. IBPAs did not feel their initial
training had prepared them for working with these kinds of
customers.” It
also states
that “12
per cent. of people with mental illness report
being...discriminated against by Jobcentre Plus
staff”. 9.45
am There
is already an issue about the level of training of existing JCP staff.
If more of the functions of JCP staff are to be given to a new
organisation—that is an integral part of the Bill—it is
imperative that a level of training is specified when the contracts are
let. I appreciate that under the clause those organisations will not be
able to impose sanctions; that still remains the responsibility of JCP
staff. Nevertheless, if someone presents themselves to those staff with
a particular illness it is important that the personal advisers dealing
with them have the right level of
training. Rethink
has provided an example of a personal adviser referring someone with a
diagnosis of personality disorder and a history of mental health
problems to a condition management programme for people experiencing
chronic back pain. That is an example of something that has happened
with existing staff. Many people with mental health problems feel
insecure and discriminated against. If we are to extend the provision
and increase widely the number of staff involved in such programmes,
they should receive the appropriate training. However, that is not
specified in the Bill. Obviously, that would be worked out when the
contract is let and an agreement is made. It is important that the
Department for Work and Pensions appreciates that there are issues to
address in this area. We hope that the Minister feels able to reassure
us that this sort of issue will be taken on board as the schemes are
rolled
out.
Mr.
McNulty: The hon. Gentleman raises some fair points, with
which I have some sympathy, but his amendment highlights the dangers of
trying to write commercial contracts into a Bill. Not least because he
has used “shall” rather than “may,” he is
saying that under the clause any contract, regardless of its content,
should
include “the
level of training required to meet the needs of
claimants” with
mental health or drug dependency problems and all the other things he
mentions. He is saying that every
single contract made under powers allowed in the clause must specify the
level of training for all those various areas, regardless of whether it
is
appropriate. The
hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need for providers to
have appropriately trained staff, where it is deemed necessary to
deliver the contract effectively. That will be adequately covered in
the contracts, which will stipulate that the providers should not
discriminate against any customer on the grounds of disability,
whatever it is. We will ask bidders to describe any relevant skills
that they have to enable them to address the specific needs of and
barriers faced by their customers. We will ask about the specific
information on the roles relating to, and the qualifications and
experience required for, each post that are needed to deliver
the provision, given the nature of the contract and the focus on the
client
group. The
procurement process will have requirements within terms and conditions
of contracts for contractors to satisfy themselves that their employees
are suitable in all respects to deliver the programme. I can assure the
hon. Gentleman that the vulnerable groups mentioned will all be given
adequate protection. The contractors’ employees will possess the
relevant skills, training and experience to enable them to deliver the
provision effectively and address the specific needs of their customers
and the barriers to work that they
face. When
we use the powers in clause 23 to contract out functions, we will take
steps to ensure that contractual employees are properly trained and
equipped to deliver the programme.
It is quite
right and proper that the perfectly reasonable concerns that we have
discussed are matters for a specific contract, that it is for a
specific provider to deliver a specific service and that such things
should not be set out in the Bill. In that context, and having taken on
board the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, I ask him to withdraw the
amendment for the reasons that I have
outlined.
Paul
Rowen: Amendment 67 was a probing amendment, and I am
satisfied by the Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 24
to 27 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
28Purpose
of
Part Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): I beg to move
amendment 23, in
clause 28, page 36, line 37, leave
out ‘aged 18 or
over’. It
is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again,
Mr. Amess. Part 2 of the Bill, which starts at clause 28, is
about the right to control the provision of services to disabled
people. Amendment 23 is a probing amendment, in which we seek to test
why the Bill’s provisions are restricted to adults. The clause
sets out the purpose of part 2 and does not in itself set out the right
to control, which is dealt with in later clauses. However, I want to
test the Minister on why we are limiting the provisions to adults. The
Department for
Children, Schools and Families is piloting individual budgets, but as
the Minister will know from our evidence-taking sessions, having
different Departments carrying out pilots on individual budgets with
different rules and different processes is a step backwards, not
forwards. It would be better for disabled people and their families if
we had one seamless framework and set of rules. Apart from anything
else, that would make it clear that where a disabled child and their
family had the right to control the services that they received, there
would be a seamless transition in the provision of those services as
the child grew up and became an adult. As a result, they would not have
to move from a framework that was run by the DCSF to one that was run
by the DWP or the Department of Health. The Minister
will know, and it is commonly said, that there is already an issue in
local government social care services with disabled children’s
transition from receiving services provided by local government
children’s services organisations to receiving adult services.
That transition is not always as smooth as one would hope, despite the
fact that the legal definitions of a child and an adult relate to being
aged 18 and should therefore be pretty predictable to local
authorities, which should be able to put in place plans to make the
transition seamless.
I seek to
test the Minister on whether removing the limit that restricts the
provisions to those aged 18 or over and extending them to all disabled
people would not only be a step forward and give disabled children and
their families greater rights and control in general, but help with the
transitional process involved in moving into adulthood.
The other
issue is the cost, particularly where local government services are
concerned. Have the Government assessed the possibility of having one
set of processes to supply more personalised care and support packages
for adults and one set that is designed for children, with different
rules and different procedures? Have they assessed whether one,
seamless framework would be more cost-effective, ensuring that more
resources were used to deliver front-line services or give families an
individual budget and a more direct payment, rather than being used on
bureaucracy and unnecessary cost?
I will hold
my comments about amendment 71 until we reach it; I will not stray out
of order. That is all I want to say to the Minister for now. We will
get to the wider issues when we move on to later
clauses.
| 
