|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Freud suggests that payments to providers could be made over a three-year period from when an individual client moved into work, with contracts offering rewards that are proportionate to the value to society and the taxpayer of moving that person into work. That approach would work as a public-private partnership to deliver up-front investment to realise savings over the life of the contract. Payments would create
incentives to develop programmes across the spectrum of clients to avoid cherry-picking the easiest clients to help.
Thirdly, in return for offering that help, Freud proposes that we should expect work-related activity from those on benefit. The report suggests introducing stronger conditionality in line with the jobseekers allowance for lone parents with the youngest child aged 12, and, as wrap-around child care becomes more widely available from 2010, to consider whether further reductions would be desirable. He also recommendsover time and as further help and support becomes availableextending the requirement to undertake work-related activity to those already on incapacity benefits who migrate to the new employment and support allowance.
Finally, citing international evidence that complexity in the benefits system can act as a disincentive to entering work, todays report recommends that we should consider in detail the potential for greater simplification of the benefits system, moving towards a single system or, ideally, a single benefit.
The recommendations represent the opportunity for a step change in the nature of our welfare system in the United Kingdom. The publication of todays report marks the start of the debate, not its conclusion. The Government will consider the proposals carefully and come back to the House with a fuller response later this year.
Does the Secretary of State agree that David Freud has done an excellent job in nine weeks in reviewing some of the challenges in the benefits system? Will he accept our support for a large part of the Freud proposals? However, does he agree that it is odd to produce such a set of proposals in the middle of the passage of the Governments Welfare Reform Bill? Do not the proposals make the Bill appear rather feeble? Would it be sensible to have a pause after the Lords stage of the measure to consideron a cross-party basis if necessarywhether any of the proposals in the Freud report should be introduced early into legislation rather than waiting for the next welfare reform Bill? In that regard, will he also comment on some of the inconsistencies between the existing Bill and the Freud proposals, which will be debated in the House of Lords in the next few weeks?
Does he agree with David Freud that Jobcentre Plus, rather than the private sector, should have the sanctioning power in relation to benefits? If he does, will he agree to amend the Welfare Reform Bill, under which the private sector could have those sanctioning powers?
Does the Secretary of State agree with David Freud that intensive, individualised support for the hard-to-reach groups is very expensive? Freud has come up with some interesting ways of funding that, but does the Secretary of State feel confident that there is in his Department, in the Department for Education and Skills and in the Department of Health, the other financial resources necessary to support David Freuds ambitious plans?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Freud proposal, which seems extremely sensible, that Jobcentre Plus should become a one-stop shop not only for the existing benefits, but for tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit? On prime contractors, is the Secretary of State minded to accept Freuds recommendations on regional monopolies or does he want more choice in the system?
On lone parents, we welcome Freuds measured proposals to move this country closer to the benefit rules that we see in most of the rest of the developed world. However, does the Secretary of State see the need to take any action on child care availability and for those lone parents with disabled children to avoid some problems that could otherwise arise?
We think that the report from David Freud is important, which is why we are surprised that the Secretary of State did not want to trumpet it himself. We hope that Freuds proposals will be taken further, and we note that, in nine weeks, he seems to have made more radical and ambitious welfare reform proposals than the Government have managed in the past nine years.
Mr. Hutton: May I deal first with the hon. Gentlemans point about the nature of todays announcement? Back in December, we asked David Freud to do a piece of work and he produced his report today. It was very much his desire to get the report out today, of course, and we wanted to reflect that. That is why we made the announcement today. There was no manoeuvring or complicated announcement.
As to why I did not make a statement, the record will show that I have made a great many statements in the last few months, so there is no discourtesy, by any means, intended to the House. Far from it. We made a written statement today, and I feltobviously wronglythat that would be adequate. I am happy to expand on our thinking today.
On the four or five specific points that the hon. Gentleman made, I should point out that David Freud has expressed his strong support for the Welfare Reform Bill and the establishment of the new employment and support allowance. If we were minded to take up the changes that he proposes in relation to conditionality for ESA, I understand that further primary legislation would not be required.
On the provisions in the Welfare Reform Bill that would allow private contractors to carry out some of the benefit sanctions, we have always made it clearmy hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform in particular has done sothat we intended in any event to pilot those arrangements before deciding how best to proceed. That remains our view.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the capabilities of the Department for Work and Pensions. I accept that it needs to improve its ability to manage contracts if we are to deliver the new model that David Freud has proposed. We will obviously need to reflect carefully on that. On regional contracts, which are a reasonable concern for the hon. Gentleman to raise, Freud himself has recognised that there might be circumstances in
which we might not need to go down the path of creating those large regional monopolies. Again, that is an issue that we need to reflect on.
On the hon. Gentlemans last point, which was probably the most important, if we are to go down the path of expecting more from lone parents in return for the additional help that we intend to make available through these proposals, Freud has made it clear that we should not do that, and that it would be wrong to do it, unless we are quite sure that we have overcome the barriers that stop lone parents working and that we will not put lone parents in the untenable and unfair position of being asked to take up work when the impact on their families would be serious and retrograde.
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will recognise much of what David Freud has put in his report from the excellent Select Committee on Work and Pensions report published two weeks ago, and we look forward to the Government response to it.
May I raise two issues? The first is the notion of three years benefit rolled up into a package. That is too long by one year. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that? Secondly, the particular issues as regards London and single parents and child care tend to get glossed over in David Freuds report, but there are particular pertinent factors in London. Does my right hon. Friend have any comment on that?
Mr. Hutton: I certainly acknowledge my hon. Friends first point: the Select Committee recently produced an excellent report on how we might make progress on reaching our aspiration of an 80 per cent. employment target. We will respond fully to that report in due course.
With regard to the three-year proposal, we will have to study the Freud report carefully. Were the arrangement to work, however, it would allow us to make real progress in achieving one very important thing: ensuring that we do not just succeed in finding a job for someone but that we focus in future on helping them to stay in the job. In that regard, the difference is between a job and a career. Increasingly, Jobcentre Plus must focus on that. A three-year period would be challenging, and we will have to study the proposal carefully.
I agree that there are specific problems in London in relation to making work pay for people on benefits, especially for those in the social rented sector with large families. That issue is being considered separately by the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, as part of our refreshed child poverty strategy. We hope to make announcements on that shortly.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con):
I, too, hope that the Secretary of State will implement the proposals in the Freud report, but why did he find it necessary to commission it? Why did he not simply adopt the similar proposals set out in the James review and put forward by the Conservative party at the last general election? Unfortunately, his predecessor, now
the Education Secretary, described those proposals as dangerous, and said that they would mean
massive cuts in front-line services and less help to get people into work.
Mr. Hutton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to re-fight the last general election, and we are certainly keen to re-fight that one with him if he would like that to be arranged. Freuds proposals bear no resemblance to those in the James report, and the view taken at that time was right. I hope that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, he will support us in taking Freud forward.
The report identifies and seeks to address some of the principal weaknesses in the new deal approach: the revolving doors effect; the excessive focus on placing people in work, as the Secretary of State has just said, rather than encouraging them to stay in work; and the inability to extend the reach of some of those programmes into the existing stock of long-term benefit claimants.
The focus on transferring risk to the private and voluntary sector and incentivising longer-term support reflects much of the Oppositions thinking and some ideas that we have put to Ministers during the progress of the Welfare Reform Bill. We therefore welcome the thrust of the proposals. As a result of the work that we have been doing, one or two questions arise immediately, and I want to put those to the Secretary of State.
It does not seem easy to reconcile the suggested approach of sending all new claimants through Jobcentre Plus for a year with the now fairly well-established principle that early intervention is the key to placing more difficult-to-place candidates. Does he think that those who have, for example, a history of health problems, or a broken work record, should be referred immediately to the more intensive form of support that Freud recommends? Can the Secretary of State reassure many of the smaller players in the private and voluntary sector that the regional lead-contractor model will not squeeze out the little platoons that are so important if we are to have a community-based solution to this problem? Does he envisage the reforms being implemented against a backdrop of benefit and tax credit changes that will reinforce the incentives for people to work and for families to stay together?
The Government have been in office for 10 years. Will the Secretary of State make an early start on the agenda by confirming that, in line with Freuds recommendations, the roll-out of pathways to work will now be implemented as a 100 per cent. private and voluntary sector programme?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for much of what he has said, although I think he is wrong to suggest that the report implies that the new deal has
failed. I know that that is his view, but David Freud said of the new deal programmes:
By any measure, these programmes have been a success.
It is worth reminding ourselves that 1.7 million people have been helped into work through the new deal, including 480,000 lone parents. It is clear that that programme in particular has more than paid for itself.
I agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman said. It is explicit in David Freuds report that if we are to tackle some of the deep-seated problems, the benefits system should provide more individualised and tailored support services for the long-term unemployed, whether they are on income support, incapacity benefit or jobseekers allowance. We should, for instance, aim for better screening at the point at which a claim is made, especially in the case of repeat JSA claimants. David Freud recognised the importance of that.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Given that the number of jobs has increased by 2.5 million since 1997, does the Secretary of State accept that the reduction in the number of people on welfare has been modest? Is he aware of the changes that have occurred in America, which has experienced a similarly strong job growth? President Clinton increased the availability of child care and the value of working tax credits while time-limiting benefits. David Freud reported on the Secretary of States brief in record time; will the Secretary of State give him this brief on which to report next?
Mr. Hutton: I do not think we should lose sight of what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said about welfare reform in the United Kingdom. It has described our progress in the last 10 years as outstanding, and a worldwide example of good practice. As for my right hon. Friends point about time-limited benefits, I have told him on previous occasions that we are not minded to take that route, and David Freud did not include it in his recommendations for the future. Jobseekers allowance is a time-limited benefit, however, and in that context the appropriateness and success of the approach have been confirmed.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): In view of the reports welcome emphasis on flexibility in job search, will the Secretary of State consider some of the inflexible and rigid practices of Jobcentre Plus, such as the requirement to attend one-size-fits-all training courses that are often inappropriate and may often involve abandoning job interviews and part-time work search?
We will certainly do that. David Freud clearly stated that we should provide a more flexible, individually tailored support system. If the hon.
Gentleman has any specific examples of what he has described, I should be grateful if he brought them to my attention.
Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): May I take up the flexibility theme? The longer people are away from the labour market, the more difficult it is for them to return to work when the time is right. May we see cross-Government consideration of how we can keep, for instance, single parents or people who become sick or disabled more closely in contact with the labour market through training or part-time work?
Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to achieve everything to which we aspire, a cross-Government response will be required. The Departments of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Skills will have a particularly important role to play. The Chancellor of the Exchequer commissioned the Leitch report, which appeared during the past few weeks and which made a number of important recommendations about skills. We must take account of all the issues, but that, I think, is the best way of ensuring that we can sustain the progress that we want to make.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): I, too, welcome the Freud report. How soon does the Secretary of State think he will be able to return to the House with legislative proposals to give effect to its conclusions? When he does so, will he pay particular attention to the reports comments about the complexity of the current benefits system, and negotiate with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor with a view to minimising that complexity so that people know that it is worthwhile to go out to work?
Mr. Hutton: We will make a further announcement later this year. Freud has recognised that benefit simplification is a substantial and long-term challenge, and the Department will be involved in a significant amount of work on that. After 70 or 80 years of having the welfare state we have arrived at a certain point in respect of it, and no one is suggesting that there is a magic wand that can be waved over the system to make it as we would like it now. That will take a lot of work.
In relation to Freuds recommendations about employment and support allowance, we will not need primary legislation, but the hon. Lady is right that if there are any further substantive proposals on benefit simplification, that will require primary legislation. However, I cannot give her a timetable for that.
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): I welcome the acknowledgement of David Freudand of my right hon. Friend todayof the importance of affordable and accessible child care. Will he therefore liaise with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to look at two special areas where there are particular problems for lone parents: child care that is appropriate for children with disability, and child care for older children in the 10 to 14 age range for whom parents often have great problems in obtaining suitable care?
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|