The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Ann
Winterton
†
Baron,
Mr. John (Billericay)
(Con)
†
Beresford,
Sir Paul (Mole Valley)
(Con)
†
Blackman,
Liz (Erewash) (Lab)
†
Carswell,
Mr. Douglas (Harwich)
(Con)
†
Field,
Mr. Mark (Cities of London and Westminster)
(Con)
†
George,
Mr. Bruce (Walsall, South)
(Lab)
†
Goodman,
Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions)
†
Hodgson,
Mrs. Sharon (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab)
†
Keen,
Alan (Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Mitchell,
Mr. Austin (Great Grimsby)
(Lab)
†
Moffatt,
Laura (Crawley)
(Lab)
†
Naysmith,
Dr. Doug (Bristol, North-West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Rowen,
Paul (Rochdale) (LD)
†
Selous,
Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
†
Stringer,
Graham (Manchester, Blackley)
(Lab)
†
Webb,
Steve (Northavon) (LD)
Mark
Etherton, Committee Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 23
March
2010
[Ann
Winterton
in the
Chair]
Draft
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work for Your Benefit Pilot
Scheme) Regulations
2010
10.30
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Helen
Goodman):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance
(Work for Your Benefit Pilot Scheme) Regulations
2010.
May
I begin, Lady Winterton, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under
your chairmanship on such a nice sunny morning? The statutory
instrument was laid in draft before the House on 24 February, and I can
confirm that I consider that its provisions are compatible with the
European convention on human
rights.
The
Government strongly believe that work is the best form of welfare and
we have already done a great deal to reduce barriers to work for the
long-term unemployed. We are committed to helping all who are able back
into work and to providing additional support for those who are
currently unable to work or who face more challenging obstacles to
employment.
These
regulations provide the legal framework for a pilot scheme in certain
Jobcentre Plus districts to help long-term jobseekers to move closer to
the labour market. External providers will deliver a programme of work
experience for those customers who complete their flexible new deal
programme without finding sustainable employment. The work experience
will help them to gain or improve the skills and abilities necessary
for their move into work. I will speak first about the specific
provisions of the regulations before moving on to the Work for Your
Benefit pilot itself.
These
regulations will provide a platform for us to establish pilots in four
English Jobcentre Plus districts. They specify when a jobseeker in a
participating district must take part in the scheme, and they define
the sanctions regime that will apply should they fail to do so.
Customers who fail to participate in the scheme without good cause may
have their jobseeker's allowance stopped or reduced for up to 26 weeks.
Similarly, those who lose their placement through misconduct will also
face
sanctions.
We
know that mandatory programmes engage greater numbers of people, and
engagement is vital if support is to be successful. We therefore
believe that sanctions are necessary to underpin the scheme and further
encourage the minority of people who deliberately avoid taking up help.
However, in line with other programmes, the regulations provide
safeguards to ensure that the payment of hardship funds for our most
vulnerable customers continues. They also ensure that benefits other
than jobseeker’s allowance are not affected as a result of
participation in the scheme.
The
regulations also ensure that participating jobseekers continue to meet
the entitlement conditions for JSA. Providers of the scheme will
facilitate a full range of additional support for up to 10 hours a
week, including job search. By the very nature of participating in the
scheme, customers will therefore be carrying out job-search activity.
We recognise that it might be difficult for jobseekers on work
experience to leave their placement at the drop of a hat if they are
offered a job or get an interview, so the regulations give jobseekers
the flexibility of 48 hours to attend an interview and one week to
start work.
Of course,
any flexibilities and easements that might form part of a
customer’s jobseeker’s agreement will be carried across
to the new scheme. For example, new regulations mean that qualifying
lone parents may be expected to participate for only 16 hours a week
within the time during which their children are at school. That ensures
that everyone, regardless of their circumstances, will be able to take
advantage of the support offered through the
scheme.
The
Government intend to ensure that we continue to support those people
who are not successful in finding sustained employment through the
flexible new deal. Although few in number, these customers are likely
to face complex and overlapping barriers to work, and they should
benefit from intensive, hands-on experience of work that will equip
them with the skills needed for employment—that is exactly what
the pilot aims to test.
From 22
November, in two pilot areas comprising four Jobcentre Plus districts,
we want qualifying customers to move on to one of three options: the
Work for Your Benefit scheme; an enhanced support period delivered by
Jobcentre Plus; or the national model of support for jobseekers. Those
who are selected to move on to the scheme will be required to undertake
a mandatory work experience placement with a participating host
organisation. For most, that will mean 30 hours a week, which will be
backed up with up to 10 hours’ additional employment support a
week provided by the employer.
Participants
in the scheme will be expected to be involved for six months. The new
measures will allow customers to gain practical experience of full-time
work while building their skills and employability. Furthermore, the
measures will allow customers to develop their working habits and to
establish a healthy and constructive pattern of work that they can
bring to a new job in the
future.
Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD):
The Minister used the phrase
“few in number”. Will she give us an idea of the scale
that we are talking about, and of roughly how many people she thinks
will go through the scheme in the pilot areas? If the pilots are
successful, what will be the size of the total client group that ticks
all the
boxes?
Helen
Goodman:
The number of people who will go through the
pilot schemes is expected to be about 5,000. The schemes are intended
primarily for people who have been unemployed for 24 months. Within six
months, three quarters of people have moved off the register. I will
check for the hon. Gentleman what the figure for 24 months
is, but plainly it will be much lower.
We are
building in safeguards to ensure that the scheme operates in the way in
which we intend. The work experience placements, which our providers
will source from public, private and voluntary sector
organisations, will be over and above the staffing requirements of those
organisations. Participants will undoubtedly provide valuable
assistance to the organisations with which they are placed, but we do
not expect their presence to threaten existing jobs in those companies,
and nor will the placements be used by employers to fill vacancies for
free, as they will have to sign a declaration stating that the
placement is in addition to existing or expected job
vacancies.
We
hope to run a two-and-a-half-year pilot in two areas: Cambridgeshire
and Suffolk, and Norfolk; and Greater Manchester central, and Greater
Manchester east and west. The pilots will cost £15 million in
total, and we expect around 5,000 people to take part. Almost 2,000
jobseekers will take part in the alternative Jobcentre Plus-delivered
initiative that I mentioned—the enhanced support period. An
evaluation of the findings of the pilot will be published in late
2013.
The
move to work is not easy for everyone, which is why we have implemented
a programme of escalating conditionality for jobseekers to improve
their employment prospects. Presently, that culminates in the flexible
new deal, which provides intensive and bespoke back-to-work support
that is tailored to an individual’s skills and needs. Our
various new deal programmes have helped 2.25 million people into work
over the past decade. Despite tough times, we are still seeing good
off-flow rates. Some 50 per cent. of people have left JSA within 13
weeks, and 75 per cent. within six months. After 12 months,
90 per cent. of new claimants have moved off JSA, and those remaining
move on to the flexible new deal stage. The system is helping people to
find valuable and sustainable work, but the new scheme will provide an
additional stage of support for jobseekers who face particularly
complex barriers to
work.
Reducing
the number of people on benefits by getting them back into the labour
market is vital for our country’s economic recovery, the
realisation of our goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020, and the
improvement of our customers’ health, well-being and
self-esteem. The regulations will provide a platform for pilots that
could go a long way towards changing the way in which people receive
benefits. To give our longer-term customers the help they deserve, we
need to take radical steps to maximise the likelihood of their moving
into work. Providing jobseekers with the opportunity to take part in
good-quality work experience and giving them the necessary skills and
capabilities to re-enter the world of work are important tasks that
have the potential to affect positively the lives of many
customers.
10.39
am
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con):
May I echo the
Minister’s comments in saying that it is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton? I thank the officials for the
extremely comprehensive seven-page explanatory memorandum that
I—and all Members, I am sure—have found useful in my
study of the regulations.
Why do we
have yet another pilot in a Department that is already extremely full
of pilots? My understanding is that there is considerable evidence from
Australia and many US states that the proposals in the statutory
instrument work and are effective. Has the Department looked at such
evidence and could it move forward a
little more quickly? Its response strikes me as somewhat timid and
inadequate, given the scale of the jobs crisis facing the United
Kingdom. The Minister remarked that the evaluation would be available
in late 2013, which is quite a long way off, even though paragraph 12.7
of the explanatory memorandum says that that could be as late as early
2014.
What
is happening about Northern Ireland? The regulations apply to Great
Britain, but if they are good enough for England, Scotland and
Wales—meaning that they cover devolved Administrations—I
am slightly puzzled about why Northern Ireland seems to be left out and
needs a separate process, even though it is an integral part of the
United Kingdom. If the measures are to work and be successful, they
need to apply there as
well.
I
am curious as to what is meant on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum
by the mention of exemptions for people with religious or conscientious
objections to being enrolled in the programme. Probably because of a
slightly Calvinist background, I have tended to look on work as
something useful and worthwhile, so I am curious about what is
envisaged. I cannot imagine that any of the work proposed by the
Department for people on the scheme will be of a particularly
unpleasant nature. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate
on what is envisaged when she
replies.
Will
the Minister say a little about the hardship amounts to be paid when
people are sanctioned? The explanatory memorandum mentions the example
of lone parents with children. What sums are we talking about? Given
that benefits are low anyway, how will we ensure that the amounts paid
provide properly for the children concerned and, at the same time, form
part of an effective sanction? That is a difficult consideration when
achieving
effectiveness.
There
is mention in paragraph 8.9 on page 5 of the explanatory memorandum of
entering people into the scheme at an earlier point than the envisaged
26-week period. How widespread will that approach be? If it is
effective, will there be scope for moving people on to the scheme
earlier?
Unless
I missed it, the Minister did not elaborate on the type of work that we
shall be asking those on the scheme to undertake, so it would be
helpful if she could tell the Committee a little more. Will it be
similar to some of the work that we see undertaken by the probation
service in our communities, or will it be completely different? The
explanatory memorandum mentions the voluntary sector as a possible
provider of such work. Have early conversations been held? If so, with
which voluntary organisations, and what discussions have taken
place?
The
Minister mentioned allowing people on the scheme to attend interviews.
I would like a cast-iron assurance that sanctions will not be imposed
if people have a genuine interview to go to as that would be
perverse.
Helen
Goodman:
I am terribly sorry, but I momentarily lost my
concentration. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that final
point?
Andrew
Selous:
Of course—I appreciate that I have bowled
the Minister a number of questions. My last point was about interviews,
which she touched on in her remarks. I understood that she was saying
that sanctions would not be imposed on someone who had to leave the
scheme to attend an interview. What she said seemed to be a little
prescriptive, so I seek an assurance that a participant on the scheme
will not be sanctioned for leaving the programme temporarily to go to a
genuine interview that could enable them to get proper work. I hope and
believe that the she will be able to reassure me and the Committee on
that
point.
Finally,
I note that the Minister said that the total cost of the scheme would
be around £15 million. Paragraph 10.2 of the explanatory
memorandum states that the cost will be £5 million a year. Is
there any expectation that the net cost to the Exchequer will be less
than that, if we take into account the stream of benefits that will not
be paid if people get into work? The objective of the scheme is to get
people into work, so surely there will be a saving on benefits that
could be offset against that £15 million. It would be
useful to share any calculations that the Department has made with the
Committee.
We
support the principle behind the regulations. However, we would just
like the Department to go a bit further and faster, given the scale of
the jobs crisis that we
face.
10.46
am
Steve
Webb:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Lady Winterton. We have a paradox with the Department for Work and
Pensions and pilots. I am all in favour of trying things out to see if
they work and learning lessons. On the other hand, the Department has a
knack of not learning the lessons from research it has already funded
and undertaken.
In 2008, the
Department published a report entitled, “A Comparative Review of
Workfare Programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia”
by Crisp and Fletcher, to which the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire may have been referring. It was quite sceptical about
workfare-type schemes. Two or three points from the research evidence
in that report are relevant to the regulations. First, it
says:
“There
is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding
work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time
available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and
experience valued by
employers.”
That
touches on two issues including, as the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire mentioned, the nature of the work. One can imagine that if
an employer is offered entirely free no-strings-attached labour, the
temptation is to make that labour do the coffee run and the
photocopying—the mindless stuff. In an organisation that pays
people, somebody who comes along for six months and has to be there,
because the Government have threatened to take the money off them if
they do not turn up, will be given the rubbish to do. That is
commercial life, I suspect. Is there a risk that that de-motivates
people and does not give them any worthwhile skills? We need an
assurance from the Minister about the quality of placements.
My sense is
that the Government will be desperate to find places, particularly in
areas of high unemployment. The public sector may well end up with
quite a lot of this labour in practice, I suspect, but can we be
confident about the measure? Will the Government, through Jobcentre
Plus looking for placements, apply any kind of quality threshold, or
essentially will any employer who comes
along and says, “Yes, I’ll take someone” be
received with open arms? Will they have to provide any minimum standard
or guarantee about what the person will do? I hope that the Minister
will tell us a bit about that. If the scheme does not do that, and if
it is demoralising work and takes up the time that people would have
spent looking for work, it could be
counter-productive.
Secondly,
the report that the Department has published states:
“Workfare
is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets
where unemployment is
high.”
I
do not know the detailed local labour market situation in the four
pilot areas, but I imagine that there are parts of Greater Manchester
where the local labour market is pretty weak. If we already know that
workfare does not really work very well in that kind of area, how much
will we learn from conducting a pilot there? How much have the
Government learned from what we already
know?
The
third point from the research that is germane to our deliberations
today is the finding that
“Workfare
is least effective for individuals with multiple barriers to work.
Welfare recipients with multiple barriers often find it difficult to
meet obligations to take part in unpaid
work.”
In
other words, someone would be put on the programme because they had
been unemployed for two years, had been through the normal processes
and what the Minister called the bespoke flexible new deal tailored to
their individual needs, and was still in the scheme. We would then
plonk them into a job placement under threat of taking their money
away, perhaps failing to address the multiple underlying factors that
stop them getting a job in the first place. One of my concerns about
this process and the regulations is that they are not terribly
tailored; it is either 26 weeks, or nothing. They deal only with the
group of people who reach that point. There is no sense that the
vacancy, experience or length of placement will be tailored to their
needs. One can almost see what will happen: the pilot will be done and
one conclusion will be that some people needed a longer period and some
a shorter period. Why not build that in at the start? Three months of
getting out of bed, having a shave and getting washed will be all that
some people need, whereas other people will need longer to build up the
work routine. Such things should be tailored and that is not provided
for in the
regulations.
I
have never been a fan of sanctions. Most people can be made to do
something if they are hit hard enough, but that does not necessarily
achieve anything. It is all very well to say that perhaps people who
have been stuck for two years need a shove. The early-access people in
the regulations are not moral degenerates, but people whom the system
thinks could benefit from work experience early on. However, my concern
is that they too are subject to the sanctions regime. It is inequitable
that those who are put on the programme will be sanctioned if they fail
to stick to it, whereas other people who have been unemployed for the
same length of time will not be sanctioned for not doing what the
Department wants. If sanctions are to be a last resort for people who
are stuck in the system, where perhaps there is evidence that they have
not tried as hard as they should, applying sanctions to the
early-access people does not seem to be fair. I am interested to hear
the Minister’s thoughts.
The Minister
mentioned flexibility. We are talking about the best part of 40 hours a
week, including 30 hours of work experience and up to 10
hours of job search. There is not much flexibility in the 40 hours. She
said that lone parents’ placements could be a maximum of 16
hours a week in term time only to fit in with school hours. I am
intrigued to know where the employers are coming from to provide such
placements. It is one thing to say that we will not make lone parents
do 40 hours a week, but I am not sure whether the mythical
jobs that involve working from 10 to 3, five days a week only when the
kids are at school, with a long gap in the summer, exist. If they do
not exist, how flexible will the scheme be for such people? Will we
just say that we cannot find jobs for lone parents in those
circumstances?
On
the structure of the pilots, I understand that to test the
effectiveness of different strategies, there will be random allocation.
People will be given one of three options: go on Work for Your Benefit,
have enhanced support from Jobcentre Plus or be dealt with in the usual
way. I have two questions about that. First, if over the course of two
years’ unemployment it becomes apparent that one of the three
options will be better for the person, is it right that the options are
randomly assigned? Would it not teach us more to have a pilot that used
what had been learned from the first two years of unemployment to say
whether Work for Your Benefit, enhanced support from Jobcentre Plus or
going back through the jobcentre process was best, rather than randomly
sticking on something that might not fit? My worry is that one of the
conclusions in 2013 will be that there is a set of people whom we could
have predicted would have done really well on Work for Your Benefit,
but who were randomly allocated to something else. We would then have
to do another pilot to see whether it works to work out what is the
best option for people. Surely the pilot should try to take us as far
as possible as fast as possible, rather than put people on schemes
randomly.
Secondly,
there is something odd about the process. The explanatory memorandum
states that the intention of the pilots
is
“to
test whether advance notification of future activity influences
behaviour”
during
the flexible new deal. The idea is that at the start of the flexible
new deal, people are told that if they are still on it in a
year’s time, they will be sent down one of three paths. They are
told a year ahead whether they will go on to Work for Your Benefit, get
enhanced support or be sent back around the system. That means that
there is no control group because everybody in the pilots will be told
at the beginning what will happen to them at the end. Surely there
should be a fourth group of people who are told that something will
happen in 12 months, without being told specifically what it
will be. If the point of telling people at the start is to see how they
respond, the control group should be people who are not told, rather
than people who are told in a different way. I am curious about
that.
On
the monitoring during the 26 weeks, to what extent will Jobcentre Plus
have the resources to go out to placements, see what is going on and be
confident that it is a worthwhile experience for the jobseeker? I am
slightly puzzled because I thought that the whole point of a flexible
new deal was, as the Minister said, bespoke support for the jobseeker.
Surely, if work experience is
what an unemployed person needs over the course of a year, flexible new
deal providers will provide
it.
It
seems odd, after two years, that a flexible new deal provider has
presumably been given thousands of pounds per head to give someone a
place and has either tried work experience with them—if they are
worth their salt—but that has not helped, or has not tried it,
because it did not think that that was the issue. Either way, to return
after two years and say, “What you need is work
experience,” does not make a lot of sense. If someone needs work
experience, why would the flexible new deal provider not give it, and
if they do not need it, why is it suddenly the answer after two years?
It is puzzling that that is the big, brave answer after two years.
Given the multiple factors that lead people to become long-term
unemployed, it seems unlikely that, after two years, we should discover
that work experience is the answer. There is a host of other factors
that we all know are barriers to work, to which a pilot should give
greater
focus.
I
am a social scientist—I love pilots, research and evaluations,
which are my former colleagues’ business—but I wonder how
much we are going to learn that we did not already know, and am also
concerned that the measure should not be the priority for the long-term
unemployed. It is not the first thing that I would
necessarily
do.
10.56
am
Helen
Goodman:
There was considerable overlap between the
questions asked by the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire and for
Northavon, although they each gave them a slightly different spin. They
both asked why we need another pilot. The reason is that evidence from
other countries is mixed and we seek to see how the matter operates in
a UK context. I understand the impatience of the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire, but I do not think that it would be wise to
spend large sums of public money unless we were confident that we had
an effective
scheme.
The
hon. Gentleman asked what is happening in Northern Ireland. This is a
Great Britain scheme. Northern Ireland has responsibility for its own
employment policies and will take its own decision on whether it wishes
to go ahead with the scheme. He also asked how anyone could possibly
have a religious or conscientious objection to the scheme. He needs to
bear in mind that we are not talking about an objection to work in
principle, but about an objection to the particular kind of work. For
example, the most obvious thing that springs to mind is that it would
not be appropriate to send a Jewish person to work for a pork butcher.
I am sure that hon. Members can think of plenty of other similar
issues.
Both
hon. Gentlemen asked about hardship payments. They are unfortunate in
not having been served on the delegated legislation Committee which, a
few weeks ago, discussed hardship payments all afternoon and to whom
they would, or would not, apply. Only customers in vulnerable groups
will be eligible for hardship payments. That includes pregnant women,
lone parents, members of couples responsible for children, customers
with disability premiums, customers with certain long-term medical
conditions, customers who provide care for disabled people and some
customers under 21. Most hardship payments are at 60 per cent. of the
rate of
benefit, but for people with medical conditions or pregnant women, they
are at 80 per cent. The sanctioning regime applies only to the personal
element of the JSA, not to payments for children, housing benefit,
council tax benefit or disability living allowance.
The hon.
Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked how many people we expect to
be moved through the early-entry scheme to the pilots after six months.
We have provided for that to be about 5 per cent. of the total
placement, so we expect the figure to be about 250 people.
Both hon. Gentlemen asked about the type of work that will be done. We
are in the process of looking at the contracts for which contractors
will tender. It will be up to them to find suitable placements, whether
in the public, private or voluntary sector. They must ensure that the
work placement will be suitable for the person. We are looking for
variety and diversity, which are obviously
necessary.
We
shall pay the contractors in two chunks. There will be an up-front fee
and a further fee if the contractor succeeds in placing the person in a
job, and the person holds it down for 13 weeks subsequent to the work
experience. In a way, that will be the best test of whether anything
productive and effective has happened. We shall measure the number of
job outcomes—I apologise to the Committee for all the
jargon—on that scheme, as opposed to other
schemes.
Steve
Webb:
I do not think that I have grasped the issue, as I
had imagined that the scheme involved 26 weeks’ work
experience after which the person would get a job elsewhere. Will the
Minister provide clarification? Is she saying that the person does 26
weeks with an employer and is then paid if they stay with the employer,
or is there no connection between the
two?
Helen
Goodman:
The hon. Gentleman is confusing the payments to
different people. Individuals who are unemployed receive their benefit.
The contractor who has to find the work-experience person receives an
up-front payment, then gets another payment if the person subsequently
takes a job and holds it down for 13 weeks. That is how the system
should
work.
Our
overriding objective is to get people into sustainable work. They will
obviously be allowed to go to interviews from their work experience,
and will not be sanctioned for doing so. The hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire said that, in the round, the costs might not be as high as
we have suggested. He is fond of spend to save, but we need to be
cautious with public finances and not over-estimate to the Treasury
what we can achieve through the
measures.
The
hon. Member for Northavon asked whether a person on a pilot work
experience scheme would in any way be hindered from finding another
job. That will not be the case. In general, we anticipate that there
will be 30 hours’ work experience, with another 10 hours on top
for job search, so I do not accept the criticism that was
made.
The
hon. Gentleman also pointed out something that is obviously true: such
schemes are more effective in a strong labour market than a weak one.
That might be the case, but we are trying to test the scheme in a
realistic way. I am trying to think of an area of the country that is
absolutely flourishing. Cambridge is flourishing, because of all the
new technology that is whizzing on, and so is Sunderland because of the
new investment in the Nissan plant. There would be no point testing
something in an absolutely flourishing area and then expecting to get
the same results in an area facing greater labour market difficulties.
We have chosen Manchester and East Anglia because we tried to select
two contrasting areas so that we could test the scheme in urban and
rural contexts.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab):
I do not expect the
hon. Member for Northavon to know Greater Manchester well. The issue
there is that although there are plenty of jobs—the number of
jobs has increased recently—unemployment rates are two or three
times the national average next to Manchester city centre, where the
bulk of the jobs appear. The state of the job market, which we are
trying to test, is not obvious. Will my hon. Friend tell me what her
measures of success for the pilot scheme will
be?
Helen
Goodman:
I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge of
the situation in Manchester. The measure of success is whether giving
people work experience, as opposed to enhanced support through the
jobcentre, for example, enables a higher proportion of them to find
sustainable work—that is the objective. We are extremely keen to
ensure that we do not use the recession as an excuse for parking people
on inactive benefits and leaving them in unsatisfactory situations, as
happened in the recessions of the ’80s and ’90s. We know
that the people who have been out of work the longest face the greatest
difficulties, so they need the most intensive support, and that is what
we are endeavouring to
provide.
Graham
Stringer:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way;
she is being generous with her time. Obviously, I agree with the
philosophy behind the endeavour, but I would like to push her a bit
harder about what will constitute the success or failure of the scheme.
Will it be a success if one more person takes up employment than under
the previous scheme, or is the figure 5, 10 or 15 per cent.?
When we come back in 18 months’ or two years’ time, I
would like to be able to declare, on behalf of a Labour Government,
that the scheme has been a success, but in order to do so, we will need
greater quantification of the measure of
success.
Helen
Goodman:
We do not have a target, and it would be wrong of
me to give my hon. Friend the impression that we did. That is more a
question for 2012 and 2013, when we will consider what the differences
have been to see whether we wish to continue down the same
path.
The hon.
Member for Northavon asked a number of questions about lone parents,
including whether the jobs for lone parents would exist. I remind him
that the flexibilities for lone parents are with respect to hours and
the time of day, and that school holidays are included only if no child
care or play schemes are available during those holidays. We know that
we have been successful in getting many more lone parents back into
work in the past 12 years. Some 57 per cent. of lone parents are now in
work, which is up 12 per cent. on the
1997 figure. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are also doing a
great deal of work with employers to encourage an expansion of
part-time work. It would be excessively negative, therefore, to embark
on the task with the misconceived assumption that there are simply no
part-time jobs and that we cannot make provision for lone
parents.
I
also think that the hon. Gentleman is being slightly contradictory. If
we said that, irrespective of a lone parent’s child care
responsibilities, we were going to push them down that path, I am sure
that he would be the first member of the Committee to jump up and
protest. Such responsibilities are obviously good cause for a person to
refuse work or work experience, and there would not be sanctions in
those circumstances. The hon. Member for Rochdale, who is not in the
room, raised a number of issues about lone parents during our
consideration of the Bill that became the Welfare Reform Act 2009. The
Government have listened to those concerns, and the complexity of the
situations that lone parents face is one reason why they will not be
fast-tracked on to the early entry part of the
scheme.
The
hon. Member for Northavon was being slightly over-pernickety in his
criticism of the technique. Randomly selecting people gives us better
data on the effectiveness of the schemes rather than the nature of the
people. For example, there could be some people who would get more
benefit from any of the schemes, so if we were to say, “Well,
these are the people who we judge will be the most receptive, so
we’re going to shove them all into one scheme and not put them
into the other schemes,” we would not have a level playing field
for measuring the schemes’ effectiveness—we would
actually be measuring something about the people. Additionally, it
would not be right to have a group of people for whom no support was
offered, because the ultimate objective is not to embark on scientific
experiments about human behaviour but to help more people to get into
work. We want, therefore, to offer everybody something at this
stage.
Finally,
the hon. Member for Northavon felt that there was a paradox regarding
whether lone parents should already have had the relevant experience on
the flexible new deal, but however effective the flexible new deal is,
some people will still be unemployed by the end
of the deal period, so we need a regime that offers more intensive
support. I hope that I have
dealt—
[
Interruption.
] Ah, evidently
not.
Andrew
Selous:
The Minister is being extremely generous not only
by giving way, but by giving the Committee very comprehensive replies,
which I—like others, I am sure—greatly
appreciate.
I
have one last question. In the course of her response to the hon.
Member for Northavon, the Minister said that the definition of success
would be putting someone in work for 13 weeks. I had been under the
impression that the Government were moving towards a 26-week definition
of sustained work. There is not a person in the room who could plan
their future finances on the basis of only 13 weeks’ future
employment, so I do not think that that is long
enough.
Graham
Stringer:
Some Members might have only five weeks’
job
security.
Andrew
Selous:
Notwithstanding what might happen to all of us,
does the 13-week duration apply to this scheme, as opposed to 26 weeks,
which I believe is the case for other schemes? Is there any possibility
of extending that period, as it is not that
long?
Helen
Goodman:
In the great scheme of things, 13
weeks might not seem long to the hon. Gentleman. However, for people
who have had long spells of unemployment, that would mark quite a
considerable success, so I think the measure is
appropriate.
I
have explained the rationale for the regulations, and I hope that the
Committee will support
them.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance
(Work for Your Benefit Pilot Scheme) Regulations
2010.
11.16
am
Committee
rose.