Paul
Rowen: I would like to pick up where the hon. Member for
Forest of Dean left off and ask the Minister whether the Department has
identified a budget for these pilots and if so, what it is. Also, how
many pilots does she envisage and what is the time frame for them? As
was said in evidence, there is a lot of keenness to see this rolled out
across the country as quickly as possible.
Ann
McKechin: The aim of the trailblazing is to test robustly
how the right to control can be made to work in practice. To do that,
we want to retain maximum flexibility in how the trailblazers are
designed. We also wish to have the ability to collect additional
evidence from further trailblazers, if necessary. The broad powers in
the clause are intended to achieve that.
It is the
Government’s intention that the trailblazer phase will involve
eight local authority areas. We have not yet chosen the locations and
we want to discuss that with our advisory group, disabled people and
authorities. No decision will be announced until the Bill receives
Royal Assent. However, we have allocated £5 million on the basis
that the trailblazers will commence from 2010 in England and we
anticipate that the results will be available in 2012-13. That is the
time frame we are currently working within. I hope that that reassures
members of the Committee. We have not yet invited applications for the
involvement nor have we considered the terms of the tender but we want
to allow evaluators of the right-to-control trailblazers to use their
expertise in designing the form of the evaluation.
The hon.
Member for Forest of Dean expressed some concerns about amendment 31. I
can reassure him that it is not our intention to run additional pilots.
The provision would allow a new trailblazer to be set up if the planned
trailblazers highlighted the need for further information or, for
example, if there was a gap between the expiry of a trailblazing scheme
and the national roll-out of the right to control. We would not want
local authorities to be faced with a gap when they were not offering
that service. The provision is designed for a certain amount of
flexibility and to allow part of the trailblazer to start at a later
stage if we find in our evidence and evaluations that we need to look
further at different aspects of the right to
control.
Mr.
Harper: May I press the hon. Lady on that? Her first point
was that subsection (6) was designed to enable a new pilot scheme to be
run when more evidence was required. That relates specifically to a
pilot scheme being replaced by further pilot schemes making the
same—or similar—provisions. That sounds like we are
talking about rolling one scheme on, not setting one up. I am trying to
tease out some different information, and I am not sure that that point
is entirely convincing.
The second
argument cited was very unconvincing. I do not want the roll-out of the
scheme throughout the country to be avoided just by rolling pilots
forward. If we have run a pilot for three years but are not at the
point at which we can roll it out, we will not want Ministers to have
the option of rolling the pilot forward. We want pressure to exist so
that they have got to get things working. If we allow for excuses, we
could be limiting ourselves to a few pilot phases, and when we hit
inevitable difficulties—there are bound to be stumbles on the
way—there would be a danger that we would resort to the pilots,
rather than making the scheme work.
Ann
McKechin: We certainly do not intend to cause undue delay.
However, there could be a genuine problem if, for example, the
Government agreed to roll out the programme in 2014 and a local
authority found that the 36-month period of its test ended in October
in the previous year, because that would mean that there would, in
effect, be a three-month gap. We intend to cover that possibility, not
to provide an excuse or an undue delay. We want to cover technical
issues during an interim period.
The hon.
Gentleman is right that, to attain maximum flexibility, the provision
would allow us to conduct a further trailblazer in another area. We
want further information, not the same set of information for which the
original trailblazer was set up. We want to ensure maximum flexibility,
which is why all the regulations will be subject to the affirmative
procedure. However, we also want to ensure that we are working closely
with local authorities, disabled people, voluntary organisations and
evaluators to ensure that we get the best possible evidence—I
hope the hon. Gentleman accepts my reassurances on
that.
Mr.
Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that assurance.
One point of tabling amendments is to have a discussion and set some
boundaries, and to make clear to Ministers what will happen when they
bring measures forward.
We have had a
good discussion about the nature of the pilots. I urge the hon. Lady,
when the Government think about which areas to choose, not to look
simply at areas where there are willing volunteers. If the pilot is
going to be successful, we need to test it in areas where at least one
part of the mix—it could be the PCT or the local
authority—is not mustard keen and needs a bit of cajoling. Given
what has happened with adult social care, that could be more
representative of the challenges that will be faced than if everyone is
a willing
volunteer. Given
the hon. Lady’s reassurances and what she said about the
Government’s intention to move along quickly, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
34 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
35The
appropriate authority by which regulations under section 31 are
made
Mr.
Harper: I beg to move amendment 32, in
clause 35, page 41, line 37, leave
out subsection (3).
The provision
in clause 35 that caught my eye was subsection (3), which
states: “Any
power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 31 is
exercisable only with the consent of the
Treasury”—
why?
I can
understand why the Treasury would want to give approval when
regulations made under section 31 would apply to the whole country,
because clearly that could have significant public expenditure
implications and it is supposed to be the Treasury’s job to
control public expenditure, although it has not being doing a super job
of that in the past few years, given the state we are in, but we will
leave that to one side. The flaw is that regulations to run the pilot
schemes are also made under clause 31. Therefore, subsection (3) says
that, even to run the pilot schemes, the Treasury has to say yes. The
Minister told us that £5 million would be available for the
pilot schemes, so it is already approved. I am confused why, if the
£5 million has been okayed, the Treasury is still
interfering.
As we have
said, individual budget pilots deliver better outcomes at lower cost.
What is the nature of the Department’s conversations with the
Treasury? Where is the Treasury coming from? Is it nervous because it
secretly thinks that the provision will cost a huge amount? Is that why
it is retaining control? What has already been agreed with the
Treasury, given the £5 million budget that was talked about? To
be clear, when the Minister talked about the enthusiasm of the
Department, he was obviously speaking for the Government. We do not
want to see that everyone is gung-ho for the proposal only for the
Treasury to come along and say, “No you can’t do it, not
even the pilot scheme.” The Committee would welcome some
reassurance on that, which was the reason why I tabled the
amendment.
The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Tony
McNulty): This will sound like I am a game show host, but
I am not. The £5 million is in the bank—it is sorted and
protected. Even if we accepted the amendment, the £5 million for
the pilots would still be there, so the hon. Gentleman’s undue
suspicion and uncharacteristic cynicism is misplaced. Beyond that, the
actual phraseology is lifted from hundreds and thousands of pieces of
UK statute legislation. The provision is simply a recognition that
things cost money. It is focused on national implementation, not
roll-out. Shame on the hon. Gentleman for even using such a
strangulated form of English. The national implementation needs
Treasury approval, as well as approval across Government. I would read
no more into the phrase. I ask that it stays in there to copper-bottom
the enthusiasm of the entire Government, including the Treasury, for
what is outlined in clause 31. In that spirit I ask him to return to
his polite and courteous ways and withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Harper: I am very pleased to be able to reassure the
Minister. I had not realised that I had deviated from my polite and
courteous ways. The purpose behind tabling the amendment was to get
that reassurance. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to make
it clear to us that the budget for the pilots is in the bank and sorted
so that the Department will be able to move ahead swiftly. As I said, I
recognise that for the national
implementation of these proposals, it is essential that the Treasury is
on board because there might be significant implications. I was just
concerned that there should be no stumbling block because the pilot
scheme regulations are going to be made under clause 31. The Minister
has adequately reassured me about that. Certainly, if he is satisfied
with the Treasury and he is perfectly able to deal with it, I am sure
that we can be satisfied. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
36 to 39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Helen
Jones.) 2.43
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 3 March at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
