---

Flexible New Deal (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2009

My Lords, I wish to add a little to what my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope has said. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to debate the Flexible New Deal. I am also grateful to the Minister, who said that he did not mind answering wider questions about the Flexible New Deal than those concerned with the order itself. I shall take him up on that in making some general points. First, as regards the contracts that my noble friend mentioned, do the current funding arrangements mean that the shorter-term jobs are funded more generously for the contractors than the longer-term jobs, or has that changed? Perhaps the Minister could let us know. Secondly, will the reports from the Policy Studies Institute—the first one is due out in December—address the contracts to ensure that the contractors are not creaming off the easiest clients to help while parking the hardest to help, who, after all, will be the most expensive? This is even more of a possibility in the current employment climate, where the pressure to meet targets will be greater than before. After the 52 weeks are up, these clients can simply be handed back to Jobcentre Plus. However, that is too early to be caught by the report from the PSI. In April, when we debated the main Flexible New Deal regulations, the Minister said: ""Providers are required to invest in all customers who walk through their door".—[Official Report, 27/04/09; col. 85.]" We need to know that that is indeed happening. While on the subject of help for those with complex problems or multiple barriers to work, could the Minister give us the up-to-date position on the niche providers, usually in the charitable sector, vis-à-vis the primary contractors? Is it the case that some of the most successful are not being subcontracted by the bigger providers sufficiently to enable them to keep going? There are disturbing reports that many quite sizeable niche providers with a great deal of experience in getting people with multiple problems into employment are in danger of closing down. This is a worrying problem. Can the Minister give us any comfort on that score? There is one other point in relation to contractors. At present, they fall outside the freedom of information requirements, although they will be spending taxpayers’ money. That point was made by the Social Security Advisory Committee. This puts them in an anomalous position with the public sector. Are there any plans to include them within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act? I turn now to the staffing of Jobcentre Plus offices, on which the Minister was kind enough to provide me with information during the summer. Is he confident that all Jobcentre Plus offices will have enough well trained staff to operate the Flexible New Deal? We will have a chance in the Welfare Reform Bill to debate this further, but perhaps the Minister would give us a snapshot of the current position. Are there any circumstances in which a person in the greatest need of help to find work but who has been unemployed for less than six months is able to access the Flexible New Deal? Do personal advisers have any discretion in this area? My final point is a practical one. The Flexible New Deal is a regime with conditionality for those who fail to fulfil their obligations. I hope that, if letters from Jobcentre Plus are sent to participants as part of the sanctions regime, the postal strike will be taken into consideration and that people will not find that they have been sanctioned when they have not received a letter in time. I am sure that other arrangements will be put in place; I hope that this is the case.