Welfare Reform Bill

I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has focused her thoughts on training and has introduced this amendment. That said, she has chosen to focus on Clause 25, which is about contracting out. One therefore assumes that a lawyer would understand the amendment to refer to contractors who are doing things such as carrying out work-focused interviews, preparing action plans or talking about specified activities for particular people, to mention just a few of the activities that, in Clause 25(2), can be contracted out under new Section 20E of the Jobseekers Act 1995. Despite that minor criticism, however, I support the amendment as far as it applies to Jobcentre Plus employees. I have difficulty with the amendment as I understand it in that, if the contracts are operated properly, no contract will be given to any organisation that cannot produce people with the specified level of training which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I think all Members of the Committee, want. I now turn my attention to members of Jobcentre Plus, to which many of your Lordships have referred. Throughout our debates, the issue of training has surfaced time and time again. I am aware that the solution I have offered to many of the various suggestions is that we do not need more regulations or blanket legislation; instead we should focus on the individual action plans, on developing back-to-work interviews as a meaningful process and generally tailoring the job-seeking schemes to the individual who is using them. I stand by that as sound advice but I agree that delivering all these individualised plans will require that the staff helping to implement them know what they are doing and are able to do it well. I hope that I have made it clear—if it has not become clear by now I shall reiterate it for the record—that I believe that jobcentre staff do a very good job and rise magnificently to the new challenges that are foisted upon them. I accept it is inevitable that there will be a few weak links in any chain but, on the whole, they do a very good job indeed. If that is to continue they will have to be equipped to meet new expectations, which is perhaps the purpose of the amendment. The Bill will place a great onus on staff who may not have a particular expertise in dealing with a particular type of person. This may be in the jobcentre, and remain in the jobcentre, but it is much more likely to be a stepping stone to the contractor and the contractor’s personnel, and even to the subcontractor’s personnel. The noble Baroness’s amendment makes some suggestions about the areas that need special attention, including claimants with disabilities, those with caring responsibilities, those with drug dependency and those suffering from domestic violence. Having foisted the responsibility of helping such claimants onto the staff of either the jobcentre or the contractors, the Government cannot let them swing in the wind. It is unrealistic to expect all staff to become experts; they cannot all become doctors, social workers, drug counsellors and much else besides, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Standards of training which enable staff to do their job must be provided. The noble Baroness is right to zero in on the issue of training for jobcentre personnel. Noble Lords will examine the Government’s proposals when we hear them from the Minister so that we can be satisfied that those proposals are sufficient. Over the three weeks that we have been discussing the Bill so far, I have claimed that only three days’ extra training in this will be given to Jobcentre Plus staff. I have longed to be contradicted by the Minister. Perhaps he can do just that on this occasion.