Mrs.
McGuire: I hoped that I indicated that clause 14 should
act as a backstop in situations where people are not prepared to engage
in activities that are supportive of their search for employment.
Clause 12 deals with all sorts of other circumstances. Clause 14 will
allow us to deal with specific and, I hope, very rare situations: I
gave the example of someone with an English degree thinking that they
could tick the box by doing a work-related activity that would not be
appropriate for them, although it may be for another
individual. Various
hon. Members asked for reassurance on directions and whether there will
be a right of appeal. I can confirm that any directions made under the
clause will be subject to an independent right of appeal. Furthermore,
if a customer were sanctioned for undertaking an activity that was not
treated as a work-related activity under clause 14, they would have a
separate right of appeal under clause 12.
Clause 14 is necessary to
ensure that there is flexibility on the ground to deal with customers
undertaking inappropriate activity. It is not intended to force people
into a specific activity, but rather to retain the right to deem a
particular activity non-work-related, due to the circumstances of the
individual and his or her action plan.
Adam
Afriyie: On a point of clarification, does the hon. Lady
have an example from the pathways to work pilot of something that would
have been outlawed or was determined as a non-work-related
activity?
Mrs.
McGuire: The hon. Gentleman may have to be patient until
we have seen some of the final evaluations of the pilot. If I come
across an example during our proceedings that would meet his
requirements, I will advise him of it. I hope that I have indicated the
type of example that we would expect to occur. I reiterate that we do
not anticipate using the clause to a great extent, but it is important
to deal with any situation that may arise, although we hope that it
will not.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her
response; its spirit is impeccable. Just as my hon. Friend the Member
for Bury St. Edmunds banished the term “scroungers” from
the Committee, we may thank her for encouraging us to banish the term
“Stalinism”. We will put them in the same
category. There are
two points that I would like to come back to. The first is supportive
of the Under-Secretary and relates to the helpful exchange that she had
with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. It
is important that officers are qualified to take decisions and offer
advice where appropriate. She did not mention advice but I will take it
as being implicit—I see that she is nodding. However, officers
must not fetter their discretion in any particular case.
The Under-Secretary gave the
example of an English graduate. It might be regarded as inappropriate
if such a person decides that they must do an English foundation
course. However, I can imagine a circumstance in which such actions
might be entirely appropriate, such as if, say, the person had suffered
a stroke and needed to recover. That is the kind of flexibility that we
need. We are not arguing about that.
One specific issue
that the Under-Secretary did not cover—I do not want to press
her into making an immediate decision—relates to the interaction
between clauses 12 and 14. Clause 14 is, as it were, dependent on
clause 12. If a person were deemed not to have been carrying out
work-related activity, and then a direction was issued, would that
person’s benefit be impaired for any time before formal
notification? A person may have been acting in good faith. The personal
adviser may even feel that what is being done is harmful to the
interests of the individual and that it ought to stop as soon as
possible. Assuming that there is not some dumb insolence at work, it
seems to me that there is a potential disadvantage in somebody suddenly
getting a note slammed on their desk saying, “What you are doing
is inappropriate, and you have lost your benefit from the
start.” Bad relations with the personal adviser may further
complicate such a case.
My reading of clause 12(1) is
that it relates to “continuing to be entitled” to benefit
“to the full amount”, and that before a direction is
issued, it would therefore be impossible to dock that benefit
retrospectively, although that may happen after the event. However, the
Under-Secretary will need to pay attention to that matter before the
regulations are defined.
Mrs.
McGuire: I obviously recognise the point made by the hon.
Gentleman. In many respects, he answered his own question by referring
to the development of the regulations, which will be subject to a vote
in Parliament. I also
thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments. The example that
he used finessed mine. He pointed out circumstances in which it would
be wholly appropriate for an individual to take on a work-related
activity that may not, on paper, appear to be so. However, through the
approach of the personal adviser, such a course of action could be
deemed wholly appropriate.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 14
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
15Contracting
out
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in
clause 15, page 12, line 38, leave
out paragraph (c). The
amendment relates directly to the previous debate on the powers
proposed in clause 14. The amendment—a probing amendment
designed to elicit more details about the Government’s
intentions—seeks to delete the provision that allows
contracted-out parties to carry out functions under the clause in
making the sort of directions discussed previously.
By way of a preamble, let me
say that I welcome the Government’s general approach to
contracting out. There is an enormous amount of evidence, from a
variety of organisations. I have mentioned them before, but I do not
apologise for mentioning them again. There is the SHIRLIE project in my
constituency, right the way through to national providers. I have
visited the Working Links project in the Parkhead ward, Glasgow, a
tremendous neighbourhood scheme not only for people on incapacity
benefit, but for a range of people who find themselves excluded from
the labour market.
The Government’s
approach is absolutely right: it makes use of skills and experience in
the private and voluntary sectors to deliver the kind of back-to-work
help that the Bill proposes. I must say, in passing, that it is a shame
that the Government have not gone further. In our previous sitting, we
discussed the fact that although 60 per cent. of pathways areas have
been led by contracted-out parties, 40 per cent. are still led by
Jobcentre Plus. I hope that Ministers may review that split in a few
years’ time, once the schemes have been rolled out and have been
seen to work. Such a review could be conducted on the basis not of the
views of Jobcentre Plus staff about their own performance, but of an
objective assessment of the performance of different contracted-out
parties.
11
am The area of
controversy in this clause is the degree to which the powers in earlier
clauses, particularly those relating to conditionality, should also be
given to the contracted-out parties, the voluntary and private sector
organisations that carry out this work. Later amendments will draw
particular attention to the powers that relate to sanctioning, so I
will not burden the Committee with them at the moment. The powers in
clause 14 allow the Minister to make directions about what may or may
not be counted as work-related activity. We want to probe the
Government’s intentions on the provision that would allow
contracted-out partners to make those same directions. Contracted-out
organisations could make directions to individuals about what should or
should not count as work-related
activity. Can the
Minister clarify the circumstances under which private and voluntary
sector organisations will use that power? What mechanisms of
accountability will be in place to ensure that people can complain or
appeal if necessary against such directions? Will that complaint or
appeal be to the organisation to which that work is contracted out, or
will they have a right of
redress to Jobcentre Plus or another Government body? The Bill allows
for powers to be exercised differently in different localities. The
city strategy was mentioned by the Minister in previous debates. Will
the claimants who have been subjected to a direction under clause 14 by
a contracted-out party, which may be different from a similar direction
issued in another area of the country, have the power to appeal? We
have already had a debate on the powers and I look forward to the
Minister’s
response. The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Jim
Murphy): I am delighted to see you in your place again on
this warm and sunny morning, Mr. Amess. The hon. Member for
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has already alluded to the
weather; we seem to have a running commentary on London’s
weather in this Committee. I am comfortable with that. If he ever
wishes to move away from carrying the burden single-handedly of his
whole party in this Committee, he may apply for the job of BBC
weatherman. I note that on Thursday morning when talking about looking
forward to going home to Inverness he
said: “I will
be confronting storms, snow, ice and all sorts of other things when I
return to my constituency this evening”—[Official
Report, Standing Committee A, 26 October 2006; c.
233.] Anyone who lives in the
northern part of this kingdom and saw the TV coverage over the weekend
will know that that was an understatement.
It is a bright and happy
morning for another reason. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs.
McGuire), has reason to celebrate because she became a grandmother for
the first time over the weekend. She is a very young grandmother to a
baby girl called Orla. I congratulate her on that fantastic
news.
Mr.
Boswell: May I relay a message from the Opposition to say
that those of us who already have the privilege of being grandparents
welcome the Under-Secretary of State to the club? It is one in which
all parties may join with equal delight. The only amazement in my mind
is that she could possibly have qualified for
it.
The
Chairman: Order. Perhaps I might be allowed, on behalf of
the whole Committee, to express our pleasure that the Under-Secretary
of State has become a
grandmother.
Mr.
Murphy: I did not think that I could be outdone in my
obsequiousness to my hon. Friend. I am sure that young Orla, as she
grows up, will be given a transcript of these proceedings as a
keepsake. I hope that it does not have too much of an impact on her in
later life. I shall
deal with the points raised in the probing amendment, but first I thank
the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for his
comments about the Government’s general approach to contracting
out, which we will have an opportunity to discuss in more detail later
in the clause. He is right in saying that it is important that we
harness the creativity, skill and experience in the private and
voluntary sectors as we roll out pathways and other labour market
interventions and welfare to work services. It is increasingly
important that we utilise the capacity in the private and voluntary
sectors. On the
probing amendment, we believe that, in the contracting out of such
services, private and voluntary sector organisations should be given
the full range of tools available to help and encourage people into the
right kinds of training and support. Through the experience of
Jobcentre Plus and Jobcentre Plus-led pathways, we know that personal
advisers can strike up a close working relationship with the customers
that they advise. It
is important that we retain the power in clause 15 because the detailed
knowledge of customers’ circumstances and support needs and
other inside information that the personal advisers can obtain and
reflect on, puts them in a strong position to make a decision on
whether a particular work-focused activity would be ineffective or
inappropriate for their customer. That applies whether the personal
adviser works within the Jobcentre Plus or private and voluntary sector
pathways. The
decision to apply a direction in itself will not lead to sanctions. It
is important to put that on the record and I think that my hon. Friend
the Under-Secretary of State alluded to it earlier. The decision to
apply a direction is completely separate and has separate appeal
rights. Removing the ability of personal advisers employed by
contractors to apply directions would place an administrative burden on
the contractor and Jobcentre Plus requiring further complicated
hand-offs and transfers of information, which would delay decision
making and increase the chances of mistakes. So it is important that we
have that consistent process from end to end.
Of course, we will need to
ensure that such directions are applied consistently and fairly and we
will work with providers to ensure that that is indeed the case.
Furthermore, regulations will set out clearly exactly when directions
can be used, but it is in the best interests of claimants that
directions be applied by the organisation that has day-to-day dealings
with them. We note
the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the right mix of Jobcentre Plus
and private and voluntary sector provision of pathways. That is part of
a continuing conversation on the right mix between public sector-led
and private and voluntary sector-led employment programmes. We do not
have a dogmatic approach and will review the evidence on the most
effective ways in which to support people to enable them to return to
the labour market. Jobcentre Plus-led pathways have been successful. We
anticipate that roll out in the private and voluntary sectors will use
available capacity and that could be even more
successful.
Mr.
Boswell: Without prejudice to the Minister’s
remarks, or indeed to the views of my colleagues, will he reassure the
Committee that if, for some reason, there were a deficiency in the
private sector provision—I am not talking so much about the
quality of the provision, but actioning the applicants who come
forward—the Government would introduce those programmes
throughout the country, if necessary
by additional public provision? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not
canvassing that, but talking about a fall-back power if 100 per cent.
coverage were not
possible.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises a reasonable point.
Jobcentre Plus would also be there as the last resort to manage market
failure, but it would genuinely have to be the last resort, because we
anticipate that a more appropriate first, second and third line of
management would be through stringent contract management, continuous
assessment of management information, penalties that can be built into
the contracts, and terminating contracts and awarding them to others.
The situation that he outlined is a possibility as a final and last
resort, but only if everything else has been
tried. I hope I have
reassured the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
and that he will therefore ask leave to withdraw his probing
amendment.
| 
