---

Social Security (Flexible New Deal) Regulations 2009

My Lords, I was going to start with the issue of the impact assessment but I do not think that I need to echo what other speakers have said—otherwise the debate would be very repetitive. We do not often get an impact assessment from the DWP, and that hampers the work of the Merits Committee, of which I am a member. I was also going to ask about the future jobs fund which was announced in the Budget and how it would fit with the Flexible New Deal. The Social Security Advisory Committee made eight recommendations, some of which the Government have accepted in full and others in part. They have rejected only two recommendations. The first recommendation—that the timing of the delivery of the mandatory back-to-work sessions should be reconsidered in the light of the economic situation—has been accepted, although the Government have simply said that it should be kept under review. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that. After all, unemployment is still rising. The second recommendation is that there should be well trained staff involved in the decision-making process relating to sanctions to ensure that the process is "expedient and transparent". This has also been accepted by the Government. Can the Minister assure us that this is not what I call a click-box exercise on a computer but will consist of a proper training programme? How long is the training for those entitled to sanction payments? The third recommendation is that sanctions for claimants who volunteer for an extension to participation in the Flexible New Deal be removed. The Government have not accepted this recommendation. With jobs currently being scarce in many parts of the country, it seems likely that many claimants will opt for the extension to participation in the Flexible New Deal. It seems very perverse to extend the sanctioning regime to those volunteers—that is, offering choice with a punitive regime. The recommendation that contracts are to be monitored for what is called "creaming and parking"—that is, creaming off the people who are easier to help into employment while parking the most difficult—is welcome, although it is disappointing that there will be no penalties to ensure that this does not occur. The quality of personalised support for those furthest from the jobs market is key here, and one hopes that the increased numbers needing help will not compromise the standard of service. The strongest recommendation is that the DWP should delay the introduction of the second phase of the Flexible New Deal, due to start in October next year, until phase 1 has been thoroughly evaluated, the results published and the design of FND reviewed in the light of prevailing economic circumstances. The Government have just as strongly rejected this recommendation, saying that it would mean delaying access to personalised support for people in phase 2 areas. Who is right in this stand-off? There are good arguments on both sides. Perhaps a compromise would be an interim evaluation, carried out as quickly as possible, so that any redesign can happen before October next year. I thank my noble friend for raising this matter in this new procedure, which I hope will catch on throughout the House.