Welfare Reform Bill

I acknowledge that the training and understanding of advisers is key in this issue, as in so much of what we have debated so far during the passage of the Bill. In relation to the existing JSA regime and the progression-to-work model, we believe it will be necessary further to develop a workforce strategy to think through the implications of the adviser role. That work will also enable us to develop comprehensive additional training material for Jobcentre Plus advisers to enhance the knowledge and skills necessary to deliver this more personalised approach. It is inevitable that there will be differences of approach and emphasis, and there will not necessarily be uniform understanding. We need to continue to work at that to broaden the understanding and sensitise our advisers to these situations so they deliver the flexibility that is in the system at the moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the previous Secretary of State’s reference to this matter and assurance that three months’ grace would be available. The current formulation is eight weeks plus three one weeks, so one thing I will take away from this is the need for the regulations to recognise that three months are available. Under the regulations that is technically not quite there. There is, as ever on these issues, a debate around whether we should allow discretion within the system or how much we should put in the Bill. The amendment would ensure that all those who left their previous home due to violence would be exempted, whereas the current provision requires some degree of judgment by advisers. However, advisers’ decisions are subject to the normal safeguards that apply within the system; that is, there is a separate decision-making function that ensures that the facts are looked at objectively and that decisions are reasonable in the circumstances and there is a right to appeal to an independent tribunal. There is that protection in the system. To summarise, we have to make clear that we are looking at three months, not eight weeks plus one week plus one week plus one week. We have to make sure that our advisers are trained and sensitised to these important issues. Where we might part company is on the need to put things in primary legislation, but I hope we have a common objective in dealing with this. On issues around training, I would be happy to engage with my noble friend Lady Kennedy to run through what is currently involved in those training exercises and, if we may, draw on her particular expertise in seeking to address them. I hope that that has shown our support for the issues that have been pressed here. The key issue that we are apart on is the necessity of putting the provisions in primary legislation, which we do not think necessary. However, we need to make sure that the regulations and the system support the three-month requirement.