UK Parliament / Open data

Welfare Reform Bill

I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken on it. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that she hoped this would be the amendment on which we would discuss the details of the training of Jobcentre Plus staff. With respect, we have probably done that on more than one occasion along the way. However, I am happy to reiterate and go over some of it again. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, the clause is focused on contracting-out functions. Of course there is a relationship between Jobcentre Plus and the contracting-out provider—there is an interface—but I recognise, as I hope I have done throughout our discussions on the Bill, the concerns that noble Lords have expressed. Whether they are to do with fluctuating conditions, mental health conditions, disabilities more generally or the need for sensitivity towards people with caring responsibilities, all have been reiterated in our debate so far today. I stress that we need to make sure that Jobcentre Plus is equipped to deal with the range of challenges that it has. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, described perfectly the breadth and challenge of the issues that present to our staff and to providers. It is never going to be a job that is completed. There will be a continual need to train and engage. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, when contracting out functions under the Jobseekers Act, to specify in the contract the level of competency required by the contactors to enable them to address the specific needs of, and barriers faced by, each group identified in the amendment. I understand the concerns that this amendment may be trying to address, as I have just expressed. However, I do not believe that it would be practical for contracts to include details about the specific level of competency required for them to meet the individual needs of each of the vulnerable groups that this amendment covers. Within the procurement process we will ensure that we contract only with providers who are skilled in delivering the support that each group to be assisted under the contract will need. For instance, in the provider-led pathways invitation to tender, we asked bidders to describe the relevant skills held by the organisation or the experience of their employees, or their sub-contractors, to enable them to deliver the provision effectively and address the specific needs and barriers of their customers. We also asked for specific information on the roles, qualifications and experience required for each post needed to deliver the provision. In addition, the procurement process will have requirements within the terms and conditions of contracts for contractors to ensure that their employees are suitable in all respects to deliver the programme. I can assure the Committee that the vulnerable groups mentioned will be given adequate protection so that the contractors’ employees will possess the relevant skills, training and experience they need to enable them to deliver the provision effectively and address the specific needs of their customers and the barriers they face in finding work. When we use the powers given in Clause 25 to contract out functions, we will take steps to ensure that contractors’ employees are properly trained to deliver the programme. However, I do not believe that the specific proposals included in the amendment would be the right way to go. We need to recognise that providers will have to provide individualised support to their customers and demonstrate across the board that they have the capacity to draw in or have the expertise to deal with that. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on three days’ training, that is not the only training that people will get. We will conduct a full training needs assessment before piloting the measures in the Bill. It is inconceivable that that would conclude that three days’ training was sufficient. I shall pick up on one or two points raised. A lot of the discussion concerned the training that Jobcentre Plus staff have, rather than the training which providers have, which is what Clause 25 is about. I reiterate what should already be on the record. As for personal advisers, with reference to ESA, Jobcentre Plus pathways-to-work personal advisers undergo training on a range of mild to moderate health conditions. This includes extensive interview skills training and the skills to help customers to identify their work-related capabilities. As part of this training, advisers are signposted to sources of information and advice to help specific groups of customers. In Jobcentre Plus areas, the pathways personal advisers also have access to disability employment advisers and work psychology personnel. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked about the availability of particular expertise. These personnel have in-depth expertise on specific conditions. Customers with complex conditions can be referred to the DEA or work psychologist for additional advice and support where this is appropriate. On lone parents, there are issues around those with caring responsibilities. As regards the training programme for lone-parent advisers, there is an adviser skills workshop, a two-day facilitated event to introduce learners to quality assurance framework 1 and enhanced skills; a further workshop, a two-day facilitated event, to provide learners with effective job placement abilities; a further workshop, a two-day facilitated event, to provide support to a customer in finding work; and a further workshop, a two-day event, to provide learners with the skills to work effectively with customers whose personal circumstances inhibit job search. There is a further workshop—a two-day event—to provide learners with the skills to work with customers who have health conditions and/or disabilities. That is just a snapshot of some of the training that takes place currently. It is not only an issue of the training available, but about monitoring the performance of Jobcentre Plus advisers. Advisers are closely monitored through an internal adviser achievement tool to indicate the volume of interviews each adviser has conducted. When used in conjunction with our quality assurance framework it allows advisory service managers to monitor quality and quantity of interviews at the end of each monthly reporting period.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c90-1GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top