The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mr
Lee
Scott
Clwyd,
Ann (Cynon Valley)
(Lab)
†
Evans,
Jonathan (Cardiff North)
(Con)
†
Grayling,
Chris (Minister of State, Department for Work and
Pensions)
†
Green,
Kate (Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
†
Greenwood,
Lilian (Nottingham South)
(Lab)
†
Hemming,
John (Birmingham, Yardley)
(LD)
Hepburn,
Mr Stephen (Jarrow)
(Lab)
†
McVey,
Esther (Wirral West)
(Con)
†
Meacher,
Mr Michael (Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab)
†
Nokes,
Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North)
(Con)
†
Paisley,
Ian (North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Reckless,
Mark (Rochester and Strood)
(Con)
†
Skidmore,
Chris (Kingswood)
(Con)
†
Smith,
Miss Chloe (Norwich North)
(Con)
†
Spencer,
Mr Mark (Sherwood)
(Con)
†
Stringer,
Graham (Blackley and Broughton)
(Lab)
†
Timms,
Stephen (East Ham)
(Lab)
†
Willott,
Jenny (Cardiff Central)
(LD)
Annette Toft, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Sixth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday
8 March
2011
[Mr
Lee Scott
in the
Chair]
Draft
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Experience)(Amendment)
Regulations
2011
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris
Grayling):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Jobseeker’s Allowance
(Work Experience)(Amendment) Regulations
2011.
It
is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr
Scott. It is the first time that I have done so—and, I hope, not
the last. I am satisfied that the instrument is compatible with
convention rights and I am glad to have the opportunity to debate these
proposals in Committee
today.
Let
me start by giving a bit of background to the measures. As the
Committee knows, young people typically face disproportionate
difficulties in finding work, both during and after periods of
recession. Youth unemployment is a big challenge for us today. But it
is not simply a challenge of recession; it goes back to the early part
of the last decade.
One of the
things that is particularly striking is the way in which youth
unemployment rates began to rise early in the last decade, well before
we got to the period of economic difficulty. Some 600,000 young people
have never worked since leaving school or college and a quarter of a
million children are growing up in homes where no one has ever worked.
That is a potential problem for the future. This is why the Government
are determined to overhaul the welfare system and support more young
people on to the first steps of the career
ladder.
Today’s
amendment to regulations is an important part of that process. It is
just one element in a package of measures that the Government are
introducing to help young people make a smooth transition from
education into work. It will play a key role in a plan to ensure that
we offer young people the opportunity to gain real experience of the
world of work and the discipline required to allow them to play a full
and responsible part in society. It will help them to overcome that
age-old problem: without the experience one cannot get the job, but
without the job one cannot get the experience.
We are
reframing the rules around work experience programmes to make them more
effective and more valuable for those who need the most support. I was
heavily influenced by an e-mail I received, immediately after becoming
a Minister, from a woman who
said:
“My
daughter has just sorted out a month’s work experience for
herself. She has been told by the Jobcentre she can’t do that
work experience because if she does she will lose her
benefits.”
Essentially,
the rule was that young people could do only up to two weeks’
work experience before losing their benefits. I felt that that needed
to change and that we needed to focus on trying to give those young
people
the first opportunities in the workplace; the evidence suggests that
once people get into the workplace and demonstrate what they can do,
there is a much stronger possibility of their moving into work
permanently.
We
have sought to ensure that young people get the opportunity to
understand what it is like to take part in the commitment to work. We
wanted to get them into the workplace to start showing employers the
assets that young people can be to their organisations. But behind all
that there has to be a degree of push. We have changed the paradigm of
work experience in Jobcentre Plus so it is something that we now
proactively pursue. Jobcentre Plus outreach workers liaise all the time
with employers who are now actively looking for work experience
opportunities for young people. However, we want to make sure that,
when those opportunities are there and when the young people have
agreed to take them up, they use
them.
In
practice, that means that under the changes that we have introduced, a
Jobcentre Plus adviser will offer advice to those who are most likely
to benefit from a spell of work experience. After that, the jobseeker
will have a choice about whether they commit to that particular piece
of experience, so that where we have funds to pay for things such as
bus fares, child care and so on, which we are doing in areas where
there are particular problems with unemployment, we focus those funds
on those who are willing and motivated to attend. Each participant will
then have a week-long probation period to find out whether the work is
suitable for them. If it is not, and they do not get on with the person
who is providing that work experience, they can return to the
jobcentre.
At
that point—and this is what the regulations are about—a
benefits sanction will be introduced for those who do not complete the
rest of their assignment. That is needed because this is an investment
of time by employers and the Jobcentre Plus outreach teams. I want to
be sure that, if we are securing opportunities for young people to do
work experience and if they have started those periods of up to eight
weeks, done the first week and fitted into the organisation, but after
three or four weeks they just do not turn up, there is a consequence to
that. I want them to understand that they have a sense of obligation as
well—that this is about supporting them into the workplace and
that they simply cannot subsequently turn round and say, “I
don’t fancy this anymore.” That is the point of these
regulations; it is no more and no less than that.
We need to
put the regulations in place for those young people who
decide halfway through the work experience programme that they do not
want to do it any more—do not bother to turn up any more, do not
get up in the morning and do not appear. I do not expect that to happen
often, and I hope that it does not happen often. We are looking for
motivated young people, who want work experience and want to make the
step into work. I hope that the sanction is a fallback for those rare
cases when somebody decides to opt out for whatever reason. It is
important to give the scheme sufficient
credibility.
Graham
Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab):
I am listening
carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he explain
how the process will distinguish between the experiences of someone who
withdraws because they are indolent or whatever—they no longer
want to be part of the placement—and someone who
after three weeks has an unpleasant experience there, whether it is
victimisation or bullying, that was not apparent in
the first
week?
Chris
Grayling:
I think that what is important in that
circumstance is that we trust the judgment of front-line Jobcentre Plus
advisers. The hon. Gentleman will have spent time, as I have, with
Jobcentre Plus advisers. I admire the people who work in jobcentres,
because their job is often difficult. Generally, they have a lot of
common sense. I have no doubt that a young person who returns to the
job centre and says, “Hang on a moment, this is not on.
Something untoward is happening and I cannot do this any more”,
would be treated with thought and care and would not be
sanctioned.
Kate
Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab):
I wonder whether, in
advance of the young person’s being placed on the work
experience placement, there will be any vetting or quality assessment
process of the placement to ensure that not only will the young person
be safe and well treated, but that the placement will be worth while as
well.
Chris
Grayling:
That is an important point. I was going to come
on to say that we have started by working with some of the major
employers, with whom Jobcentre Plus has an ongoing relationship. As the
hon. Lady will know, we have a national account management team who
have partnerships with major employers that have a footprint across the
country. Many of those have already come forward and said that they
will be happy to participate in the work experience
scheme—organisations such as Skanska, Homebase, Hilton Hotels,
McDonald’s, ISS Facilities Management, Chums, De Vere Hotels,
Carillion, Coyle Personnel and Punch Taverns. Those are high-quality
organisations and I have no qualms about steering young people in their
direction. They are responsible
employers.
The
hon. Lady will also know that we have a dedicated team of people on the
ground, whose job it is to go out into the local community and work
with local employers—small employers—to identify possible
vacancies, which can then be advertised through Jobcentre Plus. I am
looking to use the experience of those people, who know the employers
they work with, to identify work experience opportunities. I look to
them to ensure that there is a degree of quality
control.
We
do not need to be nanny-statish to the degree of inspecting every
potential employer, any more than we would inspect every potential
provider of a work-experience placement. One reason for trusting the
outreach team is that its members are people who go into the workplace,
talk to employers about their needs and identify full-time vacancies.
In looking for work-experience placements, they will be able to
identify whether an employer is suitable for providing eight
weeks’ work experience for a young
person.
Jenny
Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD):
I would be grateful if the
Minister clarified whether, if a young person has found that their work
experience has been beneficial and that they have learned many skills,
there will be a limit to how many different times they may take up the
opportunity of work experience if they are still unable to find a job.
Is there a compound number of weeks during which they could do work
experience, before it affects their
benefits?
Chris
Grayling:
For the moment, we have set an upper limit of
eight weeks. If experience suggests, as the scheme develops, that we
should modify that, I will be happy to do so.
As my hon.
Friend will be aware, we have announced a substantial number of
additional apprenticeships this year. One of the things that I hope
will happen as a result of the work experience scheme is that people
will move from that into apprenticeships with the organisations that
have granted them work experience. Indeed, although the scheme has been
going for only about a month, it is gratifying that we are already
aware of the first person who has moved into an apprenticeship as a
result of a work experience
placement.
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):
If they wish, are
people allowed to do more than one session of work experience, such as
one of eight weeks, another of three weeks and another of eight
weeks?
Chris
Grayling:
We have currently placed an eight-week limit in
the short term. Young people who struggle to get into work much beyond
that will be referred to the Work programme. If they come from a
difficult background or a particular challenging set of circumstances,
they will enter the programme after three months. They will enter the
programme after nine months if they are conventional jobseekers.
Additional support will be provided for them in that period through
Jobcentre Plus flexible funds on the
ground.
For
the moment, we are looking at a single block of eight weeks’
work experience as part of a package. If it transpires that we need to
modify that and allow people to do it again, I certainly do not rule
that out. However, for the moment, we are looking at a single block of
eight
weeks.
John
Hemming:
So no change to the legislation will be required
for a second period of work experience; the issue is merely an
executive decision within the Department.
Chris
Grayling:
That is absolutely correct. It did not require a
legislative change to move the limit from two weeks to eight weeks. It
was an internal management issue. We could certainly allow multiple
sessions. Indeed, if people on the ground said that they wanted to do
that, I would have no problem. Clearly, the one requirement that we
have to place on the shoulders of the young people concerned is that
they must continue their job search while they are on the work
experience placement, otherwise there will be a substantial ongoing
cost.
In
a nutshell, that is the package. In terms of regulation, we are looking
simply to make sure that there is not an easy option whereby a person
can drop out halfway through. I absolutely accept the point made by
Opposition Members: when something goes badly wrong with the placement
and it is not the fault of the person who was placed there, I would say
to Jobcentre Plus staff on the ground that they must use their
discretion. That situation is no different from many others in which
somebody faces a possible sanction, yet circumstances mean that they
are not at fault. The Jobcentre Plus adviser can say, “I am not
going to sanction you, because you are not in the
wrong.”
The scheme is
simple. It is designed to ensure that young people have the opportunity
to take the first few steps in the workplace. We will be proactively
encouraging staff throughout the country to be looking for
opportunities while perhaps encouraging major employers as well as
smaller, local employers to come forward and offer
opportunities.
The scheme is
one part of a jigsaw puzzle. It is not the sole part of our strategy to
deal with youth unemployment. We need to do many things, but it is a
valuable
option.
Ian
Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP):
Will there be additional
training for staff members to make them completely aware of how
flexible the process will
be?
Chris
Grayling:
Yes. As part of the ongoing training of
front-line staff, Jobcentre Plus managers are arranging sessions to
explain responsibility and requirements. We are not setting up
separate, dedicated training programmes but, as part of the ongoing
training of staff, additional training will take place. As the hon.
Gentleman will know, we are introducing a broad-ranging package of new
steps to help address some of our employment challenges and, in those
cases, front-line staff will be given guidance on what the packages
entail and the flexibilities
involve.
We
are clear about adviser discretion. We have sent a message across the
organisation that we want front-line professionals to take decisions
themselves about what they believe is right. We do not want everything
always to be a matter of referring back to central guidance.
I hope that,
with those remarks, the Committee will accept the recommendations. It
is a simple change. It is one that gives a little bit of weight to the
scheme, which I hope will make a difference to young people throughout
the
country.
4.44
pm
Stephen
Timms (East Ham) (Lab):
I am also delighted to be serving
under your chairmanship, Mr Scott, for the first time. I welcome the
opportunity to debate the regulations this afternoon.
Supporting
people in lasting jobs must always be among the highest priorities of
the Government. As time goes on, we will certainly have disagreements
with them about important areas of policy, but we are committed to
supporting them when they make decisions that are right.
We have seen
some mistaken moves by the Government in this area; summarily scrapping
flexible new deal contracts springs to mind. Nevertheless, the
Government have been willing to build on foundations laid by the
previous Government. The thinking behind the Work programme will build
on experience from the new deal. Opposition Members certainly want to
see the Work programme succeed. The principle of universal credit
builds on the gains of the tax credit system as well, and we will be
debating that in the House
tomorrow.
I
very much welcome the fact that with these regulations, the Government
are at least starting to address the substantial problems that we now
face with youth unemployment, albeit in a modest way initially. I am
grateful to the Minister for saying that there were lots of other things
that the Government were planning to do in this area as well.
For two
months in a row, youth unemployment has been at its highest rate since
comparable records began in 1992. It is worth looking at what has
been happening to unemployment among 16 to
24-year-olds. It shot up as the recession hit in mid-2008. It was about
13% then and had been for some time—too high a level, as the
Minister suggested. It shot up to about 20% and then, thanks to the
previous Government’s initiatives, it headed down last year to
around 19%. Now, with the scrapping of the various initiatives that
were addressing the problem, it has jumped up again towards the highest
level it has ever
been.
Chris
Grayling:
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm to the
Committee that, as I mentioned to him in the House, none of the schemes
that we inherited from the previous Government has, as yet, terminated,
and that the increases he talks about have taken place while existing
schemes, such as the future jobs fund, have been
continuing?
Stephen
Timms:
Unfortunately, they are winding down, and that is
the problem. I recently pressed the Prime Minister on the Government
strategy for reducing youth unemployment, and he provided a worryingly
complacent reply. It was a serious mistake to wind down and then scrap
the future jobs fund and the jobs guarantee for young people, just when
youth unemployment is at its highest ever level. I welcome this work
experience programme as a first, small step, and I am very keen for the
Government to do much
more.
The
Minister has explained what the regulations do. I take the point that a
possible advantage of this provision, as opposed to the previous one,
is that the claimant must continue actively to look for work while
undertaking work experience. Previously, when people switched from
jobseeker’s allowance to a training allowance, it was found that
while their financial position was maintained, the link between the
jobseeker and the jobcentre was not. Maintaining that link, as is
envisaged in the regulations, may prove helpful; it is certainly worth
a
try.
The
Minister referred to the sanctions that will apply if people drop out
after the first week without good reason. My hon. Friend the Member for
Blackley and Broughton asked about that. We need a little more
justification and explanation of what is being proposed. If I
understood the Government’s argument correctly, it is that some
of the most valuable experiences of being in work arise from the fact
that there is a sense of obligation to the employer, and that
placements without sanctions cannot replicate that experience. There is
something in that argument, but we should know a bit more about how the
system will operate in practice. What sort of sanctions might there be?
We have heard that if an individual drops out in the first week of a
placement, sanctions will not be applied. If we say that people who
stay on beyond the first week may be liable to sanctions, is there not
a danger that we will discourage people from carrying on at all? Is
there not a danger of sending the wrong message to
participants?
The
Minister explained that work experience can last between two and eight
weeks. How will that length be fixed? Is that a matter for the
employers, the individual or the jobcentre, and when will it be fixed?
Will the
person embarking on work experience know at the outset how long the
period of work experience will be? When will they find
out?
How
exactly will the sanctions be imposed? Will that be done by the
employer or the jobcentre? Presumably they will have to be imposed at
the initiative, at least, of the employer, because the jobcentre will
not know what is going on. How will the jobcentre know whether the
sanction is justified? What range of sanctions can be applied? Suppose
someone taking up a work experience placement had to give up some other
worthwhile activity to comply with the requirements of the work
experience, such as volunteering at a local community group and
contributing in some way to the “big society”. Will the
Minister clarify how sanctions will operate in practice in those
circumstances?
Can
the Minister tell us a little more about the range of placements that
will be offered? He has listed some of the companies that have offered
to take part in the scheme. The hospitality sector is strongly
represented in that list. What will the Government do to procure more
placements to offer participants in a wider range of organisations? To
what extent will the placements be matched to the participants’
skills or future career plans? One kind of opportunity that I do not
think is represented in the list is those in the third sector. Do the
Government plan to look for third sector organisations that might offer
places through the
scheme?
We
are told that work experience will be targeted initially at 14 areas
throughout the UK. Which areas are they, and on what basis have they
been selected? Who exactly will be encouraged to take up the
opportunities? Clearly, they will not be for everybody, so how will
those people be selected? How will decisions be made about the
possibility of extending the programme further? We understand that
discussions are taking place about extending it to older jobless people
when an initial evaluation has been completed. Can the Minister tell us
a little more about that process and how he envisages it
unfolding?
We
want the Government to be successful in helping young people into work.
However, as with so much else, there is a danger that if there are too
few real jobs for people to move into, we will make much less progress
than we should. We know that a very large number of public sector jobs
will be lost over the next few years, and so far there is no sign at
all of the private sector jobs boom that the Government have been
banking on. To tackle effectively the growing problem of rising youth
unemployment, the Government must not only develop a growth strategy,
which, as Richard Lambert pointed out, they do not have at the moment,
but look again at the scale and speed of the cuts that are under way.
The measure, modest though it is, may well be helpful, and we will
certainly not object to its
adoption.
4.53
pm
Chris
Grayling:
I shall reply briefly to the right hon.
Gentleman’s questions. I thank him for saying that he will
support the proposed regulatory change. On sanctions, a first offence
will generate a two-week sanction—a two-week loss of
jobseeker’s allowance payment—and a repeat offence within
a 12-month period will generate a four-week sanction.
The right hon.
Gentleman asked about the length of placements. That is very much up to
the employer. We do not want to prescribe from the centre. It may be a
month or two months, but that is something to be agreed on the ground
by the employer. I was seeking to avoid a situation in which somebody
could lose benefits if they took a placement that was longer than two
weeks. However, it seems sensible to set a limit if there is no clear
path to a job after two months; otherwise it could be used simply as a
labour replacement
exercise.
Stephen
Timms:
Is the sanction for not showing up, or could it be
used for other things that might happen in the
workplace?
Chris
Grayling:
Principally, it is for not showing up—for
when someone drops out of the workplace or no longer attends. That will
be a matter for the adviser on the ground. The right hon. Gentleman
asked a question about the imposition of sanctions. The employer would
phone the person at Jobcentre Plus who organised the placement and say,
“Joe hasn’t turned up four days this week, and
we’ve heard nothing from him.” Subject to a phone call
from Joe explaining what had happened, and if there was no good excuse
for non-appearance—a check would always be made in the case of
any sanction— a sanction would be imposed. The decision
to impose a sanction is made by Jobcentre Plus, not the
employer. It would compromise the employer to put them in a position
where they took a sanctioning decision.
The right
hon. Gentleman also asked what happens if somebody is volunteering. He
should remember that the scheme is voluntary. It is about young people
who want work placements coming forward, which is why sanctions will
seldom be used. Clearly, if someone has decided that they want work
experience, they will be happy to move away from volunteering. As he
knows, we are putting measures in place to strengthen volunteering for
jobseekers. In particular, I am delighted that we have forged a
partnership with the Prince’s Trust; there will be voluntary
sector desks, organised by the trust, in most of our jobcentres. That
should have a dual benefit: it will make the expertise of the
Prince’s Trust available in jobcentres, which will benefit young
people, and it will provide a gateway to volunteering opportunities for
all jobseekers. We have also put clearer links on the Jobcentre Plus
website to volunteering opportunities, and we have instructed advisers
to steer people who have an interest in volunteering towards the
available information. Volunteering is
important.
Mark
Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con):
This is an
excellent initiative, but will the Minister explain one point that I
have not entirely grasped? If I understand correctly, there can be a
sanction for not turning up at all and a sanction for leaving after a
week. There is a period of a week when someone can leave without any
sanction. Will the Minister explain more clearly the rationale behind
that?
Chris
Grayling:
That is intended to be no more or less than a
probationary period of the kind that exists in many forms of
employment. If someone goes to a placement but it does not work and the
employer and the individual do not get on, there is a get-out clause to
allow that individual to say, “This is totally wrong.”
Clearly, once someone has a place and has committed to stay, if they
drop out after a month, that is when we say, “Hang on a moment;
that isn’t on.” By that point we will
have put a lot of effort into securing the placement for someone. If
they said that it was going to work but changed their mind, that is not
acceptable.
Matching
skills is a matter for the adviser, and it is something that we expect
to be done on the ground—looking for opportunities that are
relevant to a young person’s aspirations and abilities. It is up
to front-line professionals to identify the right opportunities in
discussion with that young person. It may be that the young person has
organised the placement themselves, as happened in a case that I saw a
few months ago. I do not want the scheme to be a one-way exercise.
Individuals should have the freedom to organise placements if they find
them, but at the same time Jobcentre Plus must be more proactive in
helping those who do not have the contacts to organise such
placements.
Kate
Green:
In that context, in the evaluation that will be
conducted after the initial areas have run the programme for a period,
what monitoring will be undertaken to identify the characteristics of
those young people who take up these opportunities? In light of the
industry sectors that have been mentioned so far, I am particularly
concerned to ensure that we are aware of the gender breakdown of the
young people going into work experience. There are also issues such as
ethnicity and disability to be considered.
Chris
Grayling:
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I wanted
Jobcentre Plus to be proactive in the project because I recognise that
it is easier for people from certain walks of life to organise work
experience places through family contacts. To have Jobcentre Plus
actively looking for placement opportunities makes it more likely that
we can provide placements across the whole spectrum of young
people.
On ethnicity,
gender and whether the person has a disability, it is my hope that
advisers will find placements to suit individuals, regardless of their
circumstances, and that they will find the best placement for every
individual. We have been clear that we want more people with
disabilities in work, and we want to tackle the problems that face our
minority groups. One thing that causes me particular concern is the
high level of unemployment among young Bangladeshi men, for example.
Equally, there is a problem with Bangladeshi women in east London.
There is a good network of voluntary sector organisations working with
that group, which I hope will end up supporting the Work programme.
Those are matters of concern, and one of the reasons for making
Jobcentre Plus proactive in the scheme is to try to ensure that it
filters down to all levels of society and to different groups of
claimants. It should be an opportunity that is open to
everyone.
On
third sector organisations, I have a meeting shortly with the Social
Enterprise Coalition, which is interested in taking part. I have also
made it clear that my Department should take part in the scheme, and I
hope that other Departments will follow suit. I see no particular
restrictions on kinds of employers; work experience is valuable
wherever it is, and I see the public sector and the third sector
playing a part.
The right hon.
Member for East Ham mentioned the 14 areas, and I can quickly give him
the list: Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; Devon; eastern Scotland;
the highlands and islands; Lancashire; Lincolnshire; Merseyside;
Northumberland and Tyne and Wear; south Yorkshire; south-west Scotland;
Tees valley and Durham; east Wales; west Wales and the valleys; and the
west midlands. I stress that the whole of Jobcentre Plus nationwide is
taking part in the initiative. Because we are dealing with 14 areas of
deprivation and people who have significant financial challenges in
their life, we are able to make available some degree of financial
support for things such as bus fares and child care if
necessary.
It
is not that work experience is not being provided everywhere; it will
be. There are some very keen staff in Jobcentre Plus looking for
opportunities. The scheme means that in the areas that I mentioned,
which are particularly challenged in terms of levels of unemployment,
we have an opportunity to provide an extra element of support. As time
goes by, if the funding becomes available to spread the scheme, we will
look at the benefits of doing
so.
Graham
Stringer:
Could the Minister tell the Committee the
measure by which the scheme will be judged a success or a
failure?
Chris
Grayling:
There is always a danger with schemes such as
this that one over-measures. I will want to know at the end of it
whether it has been successful in securing large numbers of placements
for young people, and whether there is evidence of those young people
moving into jobs or apprenticeships. One of the lessons of the past
decade is that one can over-engineer these things. If we put in place
complicated reporting mechanisms that require vast amounts of
management data to be sent back to the centre, in the end we would take
the eye of the front-line staff off the ball. I really want them to be
finding work placement opportunities. We will keep a watchful eye on
how the scheme is working. We will collect data on, and will evaluate
how, it is working. It is meant to be a simple scheme, and I do not
want to over-engineer the monitoring and lose the simplicity that is
its
benefit.
Graham
Stringer:
I would not want to encourage the Minister to
over-engineer the monitoring, but I would like a simple idea of the
numbers and percentages. Not more than a couple of scribbles on a piece
of paper would be required to enable us to know whether the scheme was
a success, in terms of the numbers or percentages of people going
through it and completing
it.
Chris
Grayling:
I do not think that one would set targets for
something like this. I am not going to say that the scheme will be a
success only if we get x thousand young people into work experience
opportunities and y thousand get jobs. We are talking about a very
simple, low-cost exercise to free up an opportunity for young people.
In a few months’ time, when I stand before the Select Committee
on Work and Pensions or answer questions in the House, I will give
Members a sense of how well it is working. Based on what we understand
about the scheme, we may, as the right hon. Member for East Ham asked,
look at whether it should be extended to an older age group and whether
it is
making a big difference. However, setting artificial targets has, over
the past 10 to 15 years, created unintended consequences in Government.
It has created over-complicated bureaucracies and it has cost money.
The scheme is meant to be simple, and I plan to leave it that
way.
In
a few months’ time, I hope that we will have repeated the
experience of that first person, who, after the first few weeks of a
work experience placement, was offered an apprenticeship. I hope that
we will be able to show that through a very simple measure we have
opened a door for a lot more young people to take that
first step in the workplace, allowing them their first opportunity to
impress an employer and, in many cases, stay with that employer in the
long term. That is what the scheme is all about. I hope that the
Committee will back the regulations and support the
scheme.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work
Experience) (Amendment) Regulations
2011.
5.4
pm
Committee
rose.