---

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Skills Training Conditionality Pilot) Regulations 2010

My Lords, at first glance this looks like an extraordinary Motion to move about something as welcome as a pilot scheme to improve skills training among those who are looking for jobs. I must say straight away that we on these Benches are as keen as anyone for those who are out of work and on jobseeker’s allowance to be offered suitable training to enable them to learn new skills or hone existing skills in order to find a job. That is not the issue before the House this evening. The key to the reason I have moved the amendment to the Motion lies in the word "conditionality", which means that in the pilot areas certain jobseekers are going to be forced to take skills training on pain of losing a good part of their benefits if they default. My criticism of this order is based on two hazards: whether the pilots are being introduced prematurely and the nature of the pilots. At this point, I remind the House, as the Minister did, that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has drawn these regulations to the attention of the House on the grounds that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objective. First, I turn to the timing of the pilots and whether they are being introduced prematurely. We are told that this pilot is different from the other pilots held in 2001 and 2004, when skills training was sanctioned. Not surprisingly, the Government are keen to distance themselves from the results of both those pilots, which showed that sanctioning basic skills training actually had a long-term negative impact on the participants getting a job. We are now told that this training will be different because of the new one year-old integrated employment and skills service, but we do not know how different or exactly what is being developed. This integrated approach has been adopted, as the noble Lord said, following the Leitch report in 2006, which identified that current skills and employment services had different aims, which meant that delivery could be complex, with an array of agencies trying to give help and advice to people. Although this integrated service is not fully operational until next year, we are told that it is far enough advanced in the new pilot areas for more satisfactory pilots than the earlier ones, which first sanctioned skills training for jobseekers, to take place. The Government have to their credit delayed the start of the pilots from January of this year to April, at the request of the Social Security Advisory Committee which, it must be stressed, said that this was the least that must be done if the Government were going to ignore its original advice not to proceed with the pilots at all. The SSAC is in no doubt, however, that this is a very risky venture and says: ""The proposed Mandatory Training pilot is scheduled to start before the new services are fully up and running and we would question whether it is sensible to commence a complex, mandatory pilot before key services are in place and established"." During questioning of the Minister by the Merits Committee two months ago, we were told that work-focused training in the pilot areas is to be linked to vacancies in the area. If this provision is new—and it sounds like a welcome development—should not a voluntary system at least be trialled rather than having the threat of sanctions hanging over the whole procedure from the outset? Is there not a danger that, with all the initiatives already being rolled out at Jobcentre Plus offices, the waters are in danger of being muddied with what is on offer and how it is being delivered? Are personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus offices in the pilot areas being sufficiently trained in how to manage this complex and expensive trial? Having read quite a bit of the recently published evaluations of the Jobseekers Regime and Flexible New Deal, the Six Month Offer and Support for the Newly Unemployed, I am not convinced that this is the case. For example, on page 162, in a paragraph about the design of the Flexible New Deal needing a more personalised approach by JCP advisers, there are some alarming findings. The document states: ""In general, a lack of training and support for the new approach placed advisers at a disadvantage, particularly the new recruits and New Claim advisers. Such advisers often lacked awareness of the range of local provision available to which they could refer or signpost customers. Under time pressures, training was often not completed before new recruits were placed in posts and the electronic format of the training was often considered unsatisfactory. As a consequence, many advisers lacked the experience, confidence and sometimes motivation to exercise their discretion"." On page 28, we read: ""A recurring theme was that the time pressures imposed by the recession had curtailed the amount of training staff were able to undertake"." The document further states: ""Generally, the speed of change and the volume of new material posed a challenge to staff who were implementing the new recessionary measures—Support for the Newly Unemployed and the Six Months Offer. The introduction of these services was considered to be ‘rushed’ in Phase 2 districts and ‘too much, too quickly’ when combined with the Jobseekers Regime Flexible New Deal"." These comments do not instil confidence that JCP staff are ready for yet another pilot. Is the Minister really certain that by April all will be well and all the personal advisers in the relevant districts will have received adequate training for this new and complex pilot? While looking at the evaluations, I see that there are also some disturbing, although not surprising, findings about sanctioning that are relevant to this debate. On page 157 we read: ""The planned changes to the adviser service culture were seen to be developing but as yet not much adjustment had occurred. Alongside this, the expected changes in customer obligations"—" presumably, this means sanctions— ""did not seem to be delivered to the extent planned. In this, the early signs indicated a perceived contradiction between the advisory service giving flexible, personalised delivery through their interactions ""with customers, and the negative effects of enforcing obligations (via the threat of, or actual sanctioning) on the service relationship. This contradiction might prove complex to overcome"." Later in the evaluations report, and more specifically, we are told that there is a perception that mandating activities and threats of sanctioning can be unconstructive to establishing a good adviser-customer relationship, and that some staff were reluctant to sanction. This may account for another finding, which is that claimants were often leaving interviews without fully understanding the sanctioning regime. This is certainly the experience of many CAB officers around the country. This brings me to the design of the pilots, about which there is a lot of concern. There are to be two groups—the noble Lord told us how it would work—one is the treatment group, where non-attendance at training could risk benefit sanctions from Jobseeker’s Regime Flexible New Deal stage 3; the other is the control group, who do not risk this sanction. The groups will be chosen by randomisation; that is to say, the personal adviser locally will use the final digit of the claimant’s national insurance number. An even number means that the claimant will go into one group, an odd number and it will be the other group. We are told that claimants will be told exactly what is going on, but I wish that I could fully believe this. Where the complexity comes in is the assumption that the skills needs of claimants are evenly distributed across both groups, so that apples can be compared with apples and not with pears. This will again put a lot of responsibility on to JCP personal advisers. I hope that their training on this very specific activity is adequate. There is to be full evaluation of this pilot. The Minister told the Merits Committee that it will tell us "once and for all" whether sanctions for training work, but I wonder whether the jobs market is stable enough for this really to be the case. We were told that pilots will not be held in areas of very high unemployment, but our chairman pointed out that one of the pilot areas was to be Lambeth, where TUC figures show that in January last year there were 29 claimants for every vacancy. I cannot believe that the figures are much better now. I should have said earlier that I am a member of the Merits Committee, which is why I talk about "our chairman". I note that the first of the four types of training the department is offering is literacy and English for speakers of other languages. Looking at ESOL first, if this training is to be mandated, I assume that it will be free and that there will be enough classes at various levels in all the pilot areas. Will the Minister confirm this? We know that the Government now charge for ESOL classes, so I would be interested to know whether all participants will be learning together, or whether those who are mandated will be taught separately from those who have to pay. I assume that literacy and ESOL are separate, with literacy being appropriate for native English speakers, so will there be two distinct classes, one for native English speakers perhaps to learn to read and write better and other classes for ESOL? Looking at training more generally on offer for these pilots, is the Minister convinced that all training providers will accept mandated claimants on to their courses? It is an absolutely vital point. The SSAC is concerned that without guaranteed access, the situation could arise whereby a mandated claimant is turned away from a suitable course. I am sure the Minister's brief will make the point that the integrated employment skills service will ensure that this is not the case, but the SSAC report is not convinced and nor am I. It says: ""If the training and support on offer are genuinely attractive and effective there would appear to be no need for a mandatory programme"." I make no apology for raising at this point a problem I asked the Minister, Helen Goodman, about during the Merits Committee cross-questioning in January. I was concerned about the high number of people "failing" the new work capability assessment, which has meant that more people are being put on JSA rather than ESA. This will mean that inevitably there will be some claimants who have mental health problems and some who are likely to be on the autistic spectrum. Although we know that claimants with disabilities are supposed to see a disability benefit adviser, I am not convinced that the people who fall into the categories I have mentioned will in all cases find their way to such a person. For example, I know of one case where a mother was not available to take her autistic son to attend an interview and was worried that his social worker was on holiday. She was told that only one change of appointment was allowed before sanctions would apply. I have just been told of another case where a claimant was on the highest rate of disability living allowance who failed his WCA with zero points. On appeal, he was awarded the necessary 15 points. Could the Minister tell us if it is really true that nine out of 10 applicants now fail the WCA? I am hearing about these cases all the time and I am sure that the Minister is too. There is a strong belief in the advice sector that the Government have given ATOS targets to fail people who go for a WCA. If this is bunkum, will the Minister refute it categorically? Finally, I must come back to where I started by emphasising that we on these Benches are very much in favour of skills training. We despair as much as anyone about the large number of NEETS—those young people not in education, employment or training—and believe that as much as possible should be done to try to upskill this group so that they can get good quality and sustainable jobs. However, we have grave misgivings about using the threat of sanctions to get these young people and, indeed, all relevant jobseekers, to engage with training. I beg to move.