Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 85: 85: Clause 18, page 15, line 34, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ““( ) No pilot scheme shall commence until such time as there has been a full evaluation of, and public report on, the Pathways to Work programme. ( ) All pilot schemes must be subject to comprehensive, independent evaluation and the findings of such evaluations must be made available to the public.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91 and perhaps Amendment No. 86 as well. The aim of Amendment No. 85 is to ensure that the development of back-to-work initiatives for people on ESA is managed sensitively and constructively after careful consideration of all the evidence from the pilots of the Pathways to Work programme. Although there have been several interim studies of the Pathways to Work initiative, there has not been a full evaluation of it, or a review of the assessment procedures by which benefit entitlement will be determined—a matter which has come up more than once during this Committee stage. Other noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, have demonstrated why this is particularly important for those with mental health problems, as the evidence which is available so far does not show that there has been a marked impact on this group of people. What we are asking for is simply to know what works and what does not. After all, we do not want a vulnerable person’s mental state made worse by inappropriate actions. One major question which has been touched on before is whether the money allocated to the national rollout of the programme to the whole of Britain by 2008 is adequate. Will there, for example, be enough staff trained to cope with people who may need a great deal more time and effort than the staff are used to? That is why it is so important for there to be a full evaluation and report on the Pathways to Work programme. Amendment No. 91 would remove the power to apply different regulations to different geographical areas unless it was for the purpose of piloting new schemes. Under the clause, there could be, for example, different conditionality regimes and different work-related activity provision across the country. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether that could be the case under Clause 24. Surely the law in this area needs to be applied consistently so that it is not seen to be unfair either for all claimants in different parts of the country or for different groups of claimants around the country. I beg to move.