Welfare Reform Bill

Amendment 3 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thomas. I declare an interest as a non-renumerated, non-executive director of the Wise Group, which is an intermediate labour market provider in the Glasgow area. This part of the Bill is a dog’s breakfast, which makes it very difficult. I admire the attempt made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to have a debate across this important area at the beginning. It will be difficult for us all to get to the principles of some of this because it is such a piecemeal mess. To introduce a fundamentally new approach to welfare to work by amending the Jobseekers Act 1995 is madness. If the Bill passes, we will have a jobseeker’s allowance that people can claim as long as they do not seek jobs. It makes no sense to do this. If you are going to have such a fundamental change in the strategic approach, you should have a proper Bill about it with a couple of proper sections that set out the strategy and enshrine the principles so that we can all have a proper look at them. This is also a skeletal Bill, and the regulations that flow from it will therefore be difficult to track. They will deal with pilots which last for up to three years, which is another change that has been made. Pilots used to only be for one year. Indeed, in the Jobseekers Act 1995, pilots were only possible when they assisted people. These pilots actually require people to do things. I notice that there was a little finessing of Section 29 of the 1995 Act that enabled the former pilots. That has been changed so that there is broader access to pilots—or are they pathfinders? I do not know when a pathfinder is a pilot or vice versa; it is difficult to make sense of where the legal authority for pathfinders comes from. I make the general opening point that we are all going to struggle. I will struggle in a minute, with a little flexibility from colleagues. We need to identify the key areas of the principle of this new policy and find ways of discussing them in spite of the actual sections of the Bill in front of us. Having got that off my chest, I perfectly well understand where we are: this is a new employment programme. Actually, it does not need much legislation because employment programmes, such as new deals and things, have been done in the past using administrative procedures. Clause 1 is about "work for your benefit" schemes. I also object—I will stop being angry in a minute—to the use of inverted commas to do violence to the English language. As other colleagues have noticed, work, which I understand to be paid employment—a contract between an employer and an employee—is nowhere near this clause. The fees of the parliamentary draftsman who came up with the ingenuity of using inverted commas to make the English language mean something that it does not really say should be deducted. Something should happen to him or her; conditionality should be applied. I have this in my mind as stage 5 of the Flexible New Deal, where people have been in public service for 12 months and getting assistance, and then go to a provider for specialist provision. They have therefore been out of work for two years and are then considered for "work for your benefit". There are other routes into it, but that is where we are. We are therefore only dealing with the real jobseeker’s allowance—that of people who really need to seek jobs as well as claim the allowance. I understand that. I use that context as a proxy for a debate about a much wider, fundamentally important essence of welfare to work. I know this because I have looked at schemes internationally. Indeed, the Gregg review refers, interestingly, to some of the Scandinavian schemes, and particularly those of the Netherlands, where it is a given that universal childcare is available. There is no question about that. Around every corner and in every precinct and community, families have ready access to childcare that is not just about looking after your children—all the things in the amendment—but guaranteed. There are entitlements to childcare in these countries. There is predictable access: the parents know exactly where they are in terms of when they have to deliver and can collect children. It is good quality because it is monitored by the state. It is affordable, and it is flexible. All these elements need to be guaranteed before you can seriously begin to deliver what Professor Gregg is trying to do with his new policy. As has been referred to earlier, we all know the difficulties that that system brings in a United Kingdom context. There are four nation states in the United Kingdom. Of course, Professor Gregg’s remit in his report was to look at the situation in England. The English situation is clear and is set out on page 92. I think the 10-year childcare strategy has been developed since he wrote his report. It talks about universal schooling. There is a three and four year-old part which is not there yet but is to be in place by 2010. How safe will it be to fund? I do not have experience of the English education system but the third bullet point in the report states: ""By 2010 all parents with children aged 5-11 will be offered affordable, school based childcare on weekdays between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm all year round"." I shall believe that when I see it. Professor Gregg carried out this piece of work before the credit crunch really matured. We are now a nation facing a public sector borrowing requirement of £175 billion. That is the foundation of this policy. If it is not in place, the policy will not work. It goes on to talk about every community having easy access to a Sure Start children's centre by 2010. Some of these provisions have a pie-in-the-sky element to them. This 2008 report was probably written in 2007 and things have moved on. It is not safe for this Grand Committee to allow the Bill to pass without absolutely cast-iron guarantees and assurances in cold print that what is in Professor Gregg's submission for his policy initiative, written in 2008, will be delivered. This policy will not be implemented unless it is delivered. It is as important as that. I do not think Scotland will be in that position by 2010, so we are in danger of disadvantaging people who live north of the border. There are precedents for delaying important parts of social policy because of the different backup support in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 was delayed by four years in Scotland simply because the backup support and aftercare was not available there. The Government were big enough to recognise that and so it took an extra four years to bring that piece of legislation safely into being north of the border. For all I know, that might well be the case in Northern Ireland and in Wales. This subject is that important to the successful deployment of this policy. We really need assurances because people are frightened about this policy and I am not surprised because the past experience of conditionality and so on has been dire. Bearing in mind that this will not all be delivered by Jobcentre Plus professional staff, the Government’s response to Gregg said that there will be 9,000 personal advisers. It will be delivered by people like the Wise Group and, like everything else in life, there are good providers and less good providers. If Professor Gregg is saying that co-ownership is the core of this policy, what will be the relationship between the personal adviser and the parents who say, "If I take this advice because of the deployment of this policy, it will prejudice my family’s and my children's development"? Where will the balance lie? Who will make the final decision? What examples are there of what the Government have considered would be a reasonable decision? Professor Gregg is right. On the next amendment I may surprise people by supporting the Government more than they might imagine from the position I am taking now, but the key thing about Gregg is that he gives the claimant the voice, whereas the Bill gives the personal adviser the decision. He is making a decision about children's development in relation to childcare. There should be a balanced negotiation involving some guarantee of control in any decision about whether jobseeking conditions should continue to apply, but it has been left to a personal adviser who may be on a contract. The situation remains opaque, and is set against a background of where this policy has been in the past. I am not surprised that people are really frightened about it. Other colleagues have made the point about morality and transport and issues of that kind, which all compound the difficulty of providing childcare sensibly. If people cannot go the distance and find the necessary public transport, that is difficult. This is a crucial area. I do not know how the pilots or pathfinders will work around this. It would be interesting to know if you could find an area that had all the childcare provisions to which Professor Gregg aspires in 2010. You could try this in an area such as that and then try it in a much more challenged area such as rural Wales in the valleys, where transport is difficult, and compare and contrast them. For all I know, these pilots will last for three years. There is another point that colleagues need to remember. I understand perfectly well about the lack of jobs but Professor Gregg is talking about this policy continuing for 20 years after this recession is over. That is where he is starting and that is the vision that his document contains, if he is to be believed. It will take a long time to get this right, but we cannot safely introduce this policy at all unless childcare is guaranteed. I, for one, am not convinced that that will be the case in 2010, when this legislation is enacted. I beg to move.