Welfare Reform Bill

I am not being shy or coy. We have made it clear that we will have pathfinders, undertaken by external providers, to test these propositions, but we need to see where those pathfinders take us and how they are evaluated. If we roll them out across the country in due course, they may in some instances be undertaken by external providers. There is no compulsion or presumption that they will in all circumstances be undertaken by external providers. There has been nothing in what we have said which suggests that that is the case. Amendment 153 would ensure that functions can be exercised concurrently by the Secretary of State and by a contractor, but it would also create ambiguity as to whether more than one entity, whether it is the Secretary of State or another person, can exercise a function that has been contracted out. More specifically, it would raise a doubt as to whether functions that had been contracted out could be carried out by the Secretary of State or another person not mentioned in the authorisation given to the contractor. I do not think that it is the noble Lord’s intention to create this legal uncertainty and therefore ask him not to pursue his amendment. Amendment 155 again involves particularly opaque drafting. The best approach is for me to explain the effect that we want the legislation to achieve. When referring customers to an external provider, we want to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in any way and continue to be treated in the same way as if they were dealing with the department—I think that that is an aspiration that we would share. The Bill will help ensure that anything a customer does in relation to a contractor is treated as if it were done in relation to the Secretary of State. For example, if a customer were required to provide information to a contractor, such as proof of completing work-related activity, and did so, it could be treated as if the information was provided to the Secretary of State. That is, believe it or not, to provide for legal certainty. Such provision is necessary to ensure that when customer deal with a contractor in relation to any contracted out requirements, they do not have to determine what they need to do in relation to a contractor and the department. When such customers deal with the contractor, they are also automatically dealing with the Secretary of State. Amendment 155A attempts to remove the ability for anything done or omitted to be done by a contractor or employee to be treated as if it were something done or omitted by an officer of the Secretary of State. In most circumstances, roles ascribed in legislation to the Secretary of State are in practice carried out by officers of the department or, in the case of the amendment, staff in Jobcentre Plus. However, there are circumstances in which roles are ascribed to officers of the Secretary of State. The wording used in this provision mirrors the arrangement between a contractor and his employee with that between the Secretary of State and an officer who acts on her behalf. It would ensure that the individual will be in the same position whether a contractor is used or not, as the case may be.