Welfare Reform Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good morning everyone. At the start of our scrutiny proceedings on the Welfare Reform Bill, I have to go through a script of the usual announcements. Members may, if they feel hot, remove articles of clothing—I am relaxed about that. I ask Members to ensure that mobile phones and pagers are turned off or switched to silent during Committee sittings. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room.

I also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. To be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the rise of the House on the previous Thursday. For a Thursday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the previous Monday. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman, Mr. Jim Hood, do not intend to call starred amendments. In the recess, it will be possible to table amendments up to 4.30 pm on Thursday 19 February, for debate on Tuesday 24 February. I am sure that it would help hon. Members if amendments were tabled before the rise of the House tomorrow so that we are able to see them in print before the recess on Thursday. Any amendments tabled just before the recess onwards may be accompanied by a brief explanation to be printed on the amendment notice paper. This is the latest experiment with explanatory statements on amendments, and the Procedure Committee would welcome Members’ views on those statements. During the week’s break, Members will no doubt like to reflect on these latest developments, and then pass their views on to the Speaker and to the Chairmen’s Panel.

Not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees—these are early days—so it might help if I briefly explain how we will proceed. I should say immediately that we are indebted to our very wise Clerk. If Members have any queries about procedure or how to deal with particular issues, I know that our Clerk would be only too happy to assist.

The Committee will be first asked to consider the programme motion, on which debate is limited to half an hour, although we do not have to take half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence and then to a motion, which I hope we can take formally, to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions. Assuming that the second of those motions is agreed to, the Committee will then move into a private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence today and on Thursday, and revert to the more familiar proceedings of clause-by-cause scrutiny after the recess.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 10 February) meet—

(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 10 February;

(b) at 9.00 am on Thursday 12 February;

(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 24 February;

(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 26 February;

(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 3 March;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table—

TABLE

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Copies of memoranda that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Welcome to our oral evidence session. I would like to say to the witnesses that while parliamentarians are used to such proceedings, they can be a bit of an ordeal for people who have never taken part in them before. Take deep breaths, if you feel nervous in any way, and relax and enjoy the session. I assure you that Members of Parliament will not harm you; they will simply ask a number of questions to gather evidence before they begin detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

We will now hear oral evidence from our witnesses. For the record, will you introduce yourselves?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you. You have already done brilliantly, but try to shout, because the acoustics are not absolutely brilliant and the microphones do not pick everything up. It is not only parliamentarians who have to hear what you say, but the people writing the record.

Before calling the first member of the Committee to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme order. I hope that I will not have to interrupt anyone in mid-sentence but, if necessary, I will.

Before we turn to the questions, I would like our two witnesses to make opening statements about the Bill. You can speak for as long as you want and comment on the Bill, which will give parliamentarians the opportunity to reflect on what you have said before the questioning begins.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you very much indeed for that full and concise explanation. May we now hear from Oldham council?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you very much for that very helpful evidence.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Both of you had a consistent theme of making sure that different funding streams were integrated and available to individuals. The Bill currently provides for funding streams from only the Department for Work and Pensions to be included, and as Liz Sayce said, that does not include the adult social care funding. The Department has said, in written answers, that it is going to consult on how its own funding stream should be included in their pilot programmes and whether the disabled facilities grant and adult social care should be included. I got the sense, from your evidence, that you very much think that it should and I want to get a sense from you of how critical that you both think that is.

We are very supportive of what the Government are doing across Government about individual budgets, but there is a danger that different Departments are setting up their own. We already have adult social care: this one from the Department for Work and Pensions; the Department of Health is looking at personal budgets for health care; and the Department for Children, Schools and Families is looking at piloting individual budgets for disabled children. It seems to me that there is a danger that we are just going to replicate different Departments and different funding streams. Individuals will not actually have control and will have to battle with a number of Departments and a number of funding streams with different rules, and will not be able to bring them together. I would like a sense for the Committee, before we debate the Bill, about how critical it is to grapple all those funding streams together.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I share the frustration about how slow the process is. I worked in social services in the ’90s and remember some early attempts to do precisely the kind of things that Ms Sayce was talking about, and people’s fear about what that would mean. It seems to me that, however many years on, we should be well past that, but we are not. How much do you feel that what is holding people back is about what is in the legislation, and that this is an opportunity to do something about that? How much is about the structural problems which are out there and will continue to exist, regardless of whether or not we change the legislation?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

So the issue is about the detail, the requirements, the criteria and so on that will be in place, because inevitably you have to limit who is entitled to things and how it is done, as opposed to, in your case, the unwillingness of one of the organisations to take part.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

If you look at child care legislation on meeting the needs of a child, other organisations, beyond the local authority, are required to assist in doing that. I wondered whether, along with changing criteria around spending, one mechanism might be permissive criteria within the legislation.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

May I pick up on a couple of points relating to the level of support? One thing that concerns me is that in rural constituencies, which many of us represent, the choice will not be there and the cost will be greater, so budgets will not go as far as they ought to. Have you picked up on that concern?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

I understand the point you are making about the duty and how you intend to develop that. Nevertheless, it still prompts the practical question of how it is possible in a rural area to encourage new providers to come in and deliver the choice that people in more urban areas would expect.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

On that point about support, there has been an increase in the budget of one particular funding stream of Access to Work. Do you see that leading to it being spread more thinly across a larger number of people or leading to much higher individual use for larger adjustments?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I have questions for each of you. I will come to Liz first to give Paul a rest. In your evidence, you spoke about the importance of what you described as self-directed assessment, but you also spoke about the need for support for people to make those decisions. Especially in cases where we are talking about mental disability, there is a very difficult line to determine: at one extreme, someone can make all the decisions about their care and at the other extreme they cannot. There is a space in the middle where it can be done with support. Are you confident that the resources are there to give adequate support to make this work?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

You are saying that there has to be a framework to support people who need support with making a choice.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Are you satisfied that enough support is there so that when that new choice arrives it will be optimised by the people we want to aim it at?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

That is very helpful. Thank you. Paul, picking up exactly where you finished, in your evidence you raised a concern about the pace of progress that has taken place, and I think that you implied that there was a question about the pace going forward from here—whether it would come through quickly enough. Are you saying that you have encountered institutional inertia in bits of the system? Will that still be a problem as the Bill comes into effect? If you do think that, what can be learned and applied from the Oldham experience? Does something else need to be done in the Bill to help us overcome that problem, or is what is here sufficient?

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I would like to move on to clause 8, which deals with the conditionality aspect for payments of jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance. The Government have an ambitious target for getting people off incapacity benefit and back into work. What are the challenges and what support and training need to be put in place for Jobcentre Plus to be able to carry out some of the new powers that are in this Bill?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Mr. Davies, you mentioned that something like a fifth of the people with personal budgets in the country are in Oldham. Is it reasonable to suppose that you have probably pushed the process of moving towards personal budgets as far as is possible within the present legislative framework? If so, to what extent do you think the measures in the Bill and the programme of development that the Government have spelled out will enable you to carry it further or make it easier for other authorities to develop? Is there anything you would like to see in the Bill that would enable you and others to carry it further and faster?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

A point which may be as much, if not more, related to Ms Sayce as to you, is that we are all familiar with the difficulties different institutions have in co-operating with each other. I used to say that it was more difficult to get one Government Department to co-operate with another than it was to get the United States and the USSR to co-operate at the height of the cold war. I think that that is true not just in central or local government and in other institutions, and it is clearly a problem.

I wonder to what extent the difficulty that institutions have in co-operating is that they find that the current rules and the current control that they have are a way of rationing resources, and that if they move to personalised budgets, they believe it will lead to an explosion of demand. The presumption in what both of you have said is that within a given budget you can get much more well-being, and that is why you want to move there. Is the reluctance to move towards creating more well-being due to Departments seeing the existing rules as enabling them to live within their budgets?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

My question is about how we deal with the fact that, as you said, every individual is different; if I understood you correctly, something like 50 per cent. of your folk prefer not to take control of the resources, 25 per cent. take full control and 25 per cent. are somewhere in between.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Is that an ideal position or is the ideal to move to 100 per cent. control? What do you foresee? I assume that for some people choice is quite stressful and they do not want it. There is also the thing about the individual against the community. The example was of driving lessons against a day centre, and for some people getting the driving lessons would be right, but others might want the driving lessons, yet be better off in a day centre. Is that the case?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I take your point that personalisation is generally better, but clearly some people will make the wrong decisions at times. On the example of substance abuse, it is tremendous that somebody actually recognised that there would be a problem if they had cash. I suspect that other people would not have recognised that. Are you therefore saying that people should not be proactive, or would you just allow them to make mistakes?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I have two linked questions for both of you. First, the Government’s analysis states that the right to control for these funding streams will be tested in a small number of authorities from 2010. It seems from what both of you were saying that the right to control individual budget process has been well tested in adult social care. You know what works in your authority and there are examples from across the country of what works. Does the Department need to pilot this stuff or should it be braver about trying to move faster?

The linked part of the question is this: clearly the Department and the Government will be nervous about going fast and having things not work, but there is a cost on the other side of going too slowly. If you get better outcomes for the people themselves and you spend public money better, particularly in the current climate where that money is very limited, there seems to be an incredible cost in going slowly: you are forcing people to get worse outcomes and you are spending public money more inefficiently. Given that the Bill gives the Secretary of State quite wide-ranging powers to make regulations, should he be brave and make regulations that apply to everyone straight away? Then authorities that want to go faster can, and we can put pressure on. Or should the Department do what it plans to do—pilot this in a few authorities, potentially for up to three years? So another three years will pass before we see a great deal of progress.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

In Oldham, Paul, you have been lucky to have the co-operation of the primary care trust so you have a firm measure of control over community services and adult social services. That is not included in the regulations in this Bill. I am thinking of an example of a young man who went to university; we had to get everyone together on a Friday afternoon. The council had agreed its money; the university had agreed what it was going to do. The PCT was reluctant to finance the support that young man needed. Will people be able to get the lifestyle changes that they want without adult and community care control as well?

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Should a duty to co-operate be included in the Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We seem to have exhausted our questioning, so before we thank you, do either of you have any final thoughts that you wish to leave these parliamentarians with, to have in the back of their mind as they go on to consider the Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you both very much for your time, for your evidence and for how you have responded to questions.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I welcome our two witnesses from DrugScope, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Barnes. Would you introduce yourselves and explain who you are?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Before colleagues ask questions, I invite you both to make a statement reflecting on the Bill. It does not matter how long you take.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

In the last session, we heard about the importance of organisations working together to look at the range of issues for people who are considering getting back to work or getting into work for the first time. I assume that we would say exactly the same things about drug users: it is not about one part of their life, but about the whole range—it is about accessing treatment, accommodation issues, other health issues and Access to Work. Are you saying that there are things in the legislation as drafted that would prevent that? Are there things that we should be more directive on, as Mr. Davies said in the last session? There are sanctions, which seem to be the right thing at some point, but are there other ways in which the Bill could be improved to deliver the services to assist people?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am sorry; are you saying that people currently have a very positive image of drug users and that the Bill will make it worse?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am not quarrelling with you about that general aim, which is clearly the aim of the legislation. I am saying that I do not see that the sanction conflicts with that. The sanction is a mechanism for encouraging motivation and allowing people to access support and move forward, rather than something that centres on how a drug user may or may not be seen more widely.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

So is it your position that there should never be any sanctions in relation to benefits for drug users?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

No, I am not asking about what is happening. I am asking whether the position of your organisation and your members is that there should not, ever, be sanctions in relation to drug users.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

So, you are saying no?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

We are not clear about whether you have answered to the question. My question is whether there are any circumstances in which drug users should be sanctioned, in terms of their benefits.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

So you would admit that there are circumstances where it might be appropriate to sanction?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

That was helpful clarification. First, by way of preamble, one of you mentioned progress2work. I visited the service that is delivered by Turning Point in Cardiff. I talked to some of the staff and clients. I got some flavour of the complexity of getting them either into work or back into work. I support what you said on that.

Following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, if someone is on out-of-work benefits because of their drug or alcohol problem, why should they not have to seek some treatment for that problem if it is the barrier to their getting into work? Certainly those looking from outside, those who work and pay taxes, cannot see why someone whose problem relates to their drug or alcohol abuse should continue to get taxpayers’ money if they are not willing to take some steps to sort that problem out. Why should they not be required to sort it out? I will ask you in a moment about the extent to which that treatment is available and the capacity. But in terms of the principle, is your objection to compulsion and threatening to withhold benefits if they do not undergo treatment philosophical or practical? Is your view on that driven by what you think the practical outcomes will be, or do you think it is wrong in principle?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Dr. Roberts, do you want to add anything?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Given that you focus on the practical, what would your response be to the man in the street who does not think it right that he has to go to work and pay taxes to fund benefits for someone whose primary reason for not going to work is a drug problem and who is not willing to do something about it, when the man in the street can see that continuing for year upon year? How do we, as politicians, say to that person, “That is okay”?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Could we just be clear? I have estates in my constituency which periodically suffer a great deal as a result of people who have problem drug use. These are the people—Mark talks about the man or woman in the street—who come up and ask these questions. They are not the people who are going to respond to a consultation, but I can assure you this is an issue that most Members of Parliament will at times come across and people will raise it. To suggest that people do not think this is a problem is wrong. We are not raising this because we see it in the media; we are raising it because we see it on the streets of our constituencies.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Let me give you the opportunity to say something about treatment and the capacity to deal with a large increase. The reason people are concerned—it was probably the genesis of the story you were about to refer to—is not out-of-work benefits but disability living allowance. You have portrayed a background over the last few years of increased drug treatment availability but over that period there has been a fourfold increase in the number of people claiming disability living allowance whose main reason for claiming has been alcohol or drug addiction. If treatment is increasingly available but there are more people claiming benefits as a result of their drug addiction, there is clearly a problem getting people to access that treatment. If we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Bill is effective—I know you do not think it will be, but let us assume—and there is a significant increase in the number of people on out-of-work benefits or DLA wanting to access treatment, what will they find? Is there sufficient capacity and treatment available across the piece? When they put up their hand and say, “Actually, I’d like to get my drug or alcohol problem sorted out,” will they find that there is no help available?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The Bill tackles both. The powers in the Bill are not only for illegal drug use; they are also for alcohol.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

So you are saying that if the measures in the Bill are enacted and are successful—let us assume that they will be, because that will be the Department’s argument—the problem will be that, unless something changes, the treatment will not be available for the people that you identify as problem drug users mandated to access treatment, because of that significant increase in demand?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I have a couple of points. The first concerns children and child poverty. You have mentioned the possible effect on families of a sanctions regime. One suggestion was that the wider family could pick up the slack, which might suggest that the children themselves just carry on. It is always a difficult decision with children when one of the parents is a drug addict: do you leave them with the family, at a certain amount of risk, or do you take them into care? Have you done any work on the effect that that might have on children? Would more children be taken into care?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

You said earlier that many problem drug users have underlying problems, which might relate to mental health or be much more general. It seems to me that there is not much point in getting a person off drugs if you do not deal with the underlying problem, because they will just go back to drugs, alcohol or gambling. What is your experience of the time scales for people working through some of those problems?

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I have two questions. The first goes back to the issue of resources. We are told that there are 240,000 addicts on benefits. What proportion are currently getting treatment, and what would be the additional cost, in your view, of getting everybody on a course of treatment—if all 240,000 were to be put through the system?

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

The Government have not either. That is why I am asking the question.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

This is a slightly different question. There is a group of drug addicts who are addicted to tranquilizers. Do you have an estimate of the numbers who have been put on treatment through no fault of their own? Again, what kind of support would be needed if this regime were to be implemented for them?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I apologise for slipping out, and I hope that my question was not asked in my absence.

When you argued your case and raised doubts about the element of compulsion and sanction in the Bill regarding drug users taking treatment, I was struck by the fact that you essentially based it on speculation about adverse outcomes, just as the Government and most of my constituents probably base their case on speculation about users and benefits. Are there any studies from countries such as Sweden that have used a more coercive approach that suggest that there is a beneficial effect when people are required to take treatment—the element of requiring people to take treatment is now built into the criminal justice system? Clearly, as far as my constituents are concerned, if the system is going to work, they have no compunction about requiring people to take treatment.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

May I press you on resources, Mr. Barnes—you are in demand at the moment? Although I accept that the estimates are not precise, if the Bill becomes law, you could have up to 100,000 additional addicts seeking treatment. We have discussed the limitation on resources. As the resources are presently constituted, can you give us your best guess—I know this is a difficult question—as to how many extra addicts could be treated?

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

An opinion would be welcome.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

May I be a little unfair and return to my original question? Can you give us your best guess? Are we talking about the lower end—10,000 or 20,000? Accepting everything you say, and that these figures are not precise, I would just like an indication of whether you think that we do not stand a chance at all, or whether, if we all pull together, there would be some chance of getting at least halfway.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

Let me press you a little bit more. Taking a slightly longer term perspective, if budgets were frozen, would there be any additional resources that could be brought in from other areas to help with regard to this possibly quite sudden uplift in treatment need?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

There is very little time left. In 30 seconds, does either witness want to say anything to the Committee that they had forgotten to share?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have to interrupt you. I thank you both very much for the time that you have given to the Committee and for your responses.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good afternoon everyone. I welcome the witnesses, one or two of whom have probably given evidence before. For those who have not, I will say what I said this morning. There is nothing to fear; Members of Parliament are here simply to gather evidence from you. We hope that you will relax and enjoy the afternoon. Will you please introduce yourselves?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Mr. Nichols, do you have anything to add to what your colleague has said?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Colleagues, there is plenty of food for thought there.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I would like to ask about the position of lone parents with younger children, which is a very important aspect of the Bill. We will perhaps start with Fiona and Kate. You have seen the Government’s proposals, which were set out in response to the Gregg report, on how they see the parents of children under the age of seven in a progression to work group. After the children are seven years old, the parents will obviously move from income support to jobseeker’s allowance. Under this philosophy of progression to work, those with children under seven will be in a new group, and lone parents of children of three to six years old will be

“Required to follow the full progression to Work regime based around Work Focused interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction.”

How do you feel about that?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Have you any reflections on the age at which this measure kicks in, which is the age of three?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The point is that all the members of that group, whether they are people on ESA who may have a condition that inhibits them or a single parent caring for a young child, are on a journey towards work. However, you say that we must balance these other factors and take into account the age of the child. May I put the same general question about the age at which this measure applies to the Child Poverty Action Group?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Do you have any reflections on three as the age limit for the youngest child at which the full progression to work regime will kick in?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Finally, may I ask Martin Narey the same question?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

May I ask about clause 13, which deals with reform of the social fund? I would welcome your comments and the perspectives of your organisations about the effectiveness of the social fund in tackling and alleviating poverty. What shortfalls do you think it has, and to what extent will the proposed reforms, such as the introduction of external providers, meet the problems that you perceive with this part of the welfare system?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

May I follow up what Martin said with the other two bodies represented? Martin put his finger on the problem of unaffordable credit, but what scope do you see for the social fund providing affordable credit? I know that you have spoken about grants—I understand the argument about grants versus a loan—but taking the issue that we are trying to deal with, which is unaffordable credit and the interest rates of 300 per cent. or 1,000 per cent. that doorstep lenders charge, do you see a role for the social fund in addition to providing a certain amount of interest-free lending, perhaps in providing the facility for low-cost credit?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

There is no provision for injury time, so we have only until 5.30 pm with the present witnesses, but I shall ensure that all hon. Members who catch my eye can ask their questions.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Do you want a crack at this, Mr. Narey?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Of what sort of order?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

May I take you back to conditionality? There are two issues. In the CPAG evidence that you kindly provided for Second Reading, you said that conditionality is wrong in the current economic circumstances. The Barnardo’s memorandum shows that the current economic climate makes it even more important to promote work experience. So there is a difference of view there, which seemed to me to be encapsulated in what you said at the beginning about a difference in attitude to conditionality for lone parents as a whole, with the four at one end of the table being anti-conditionality and you, Martin Narey, if not being pro, then not accepting it as much of a negative.

Would you like to comment first on whether there is a polarity between you in terms of the acceptance of conditionality, and secondly, within that, on the relevance and the impact that you think the current economic circumstances have on the issue of conditionality?

Martin Narey, since you are the loner in this group, perhaps you might like to start.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

And that view would apply whether we were in recession or not?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Having heard that, I am not sure you are nearer consensus, and you may actually be further apart. Do you want to come back on that?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

This question follows on from that last point on conditionality. I noticed as well, Mr. Narey, that you had said you were more in favour of conditionality. I wonder whether that is in favour of conditionality whatever the level of benefits. Or are you saying that the present benefits are excessive and therefore families could afford to lose a bit? Or would you be in favour if benefits were higher and the extra bit of benefits could be conditional?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

May I press you on that? I understand that some Nordic countries have conditionality but starting from a higher base. What happens to a family that is on the minimum when you take that away? Do they steal or do the grandparents have to pay?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

May I ask the other groups how they would look at that? Would you accept conditionality if there were an extra element above the minimum that could be taken away?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Mr. Nichols, I think you said that if people are going to move into work, it must be well-paid work. Can you clarify or expand on that? Am I right to say that the minimum wage of £5.73 is not well- paid work?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I should like to draw the attention of the witnesses to two other parts of the Bill. First, some proposals have been put forward on part 3 on the amendments on child maintenance. Specifically, the powers that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has to confiscate driving licences and travel authorisations have to be taken through the court process. Ministers contend that that is not effective and want to move to an administrative process. I am interested to hear each of your comments on that and whether you think that that would effectively achieve the end result, which is getting more absent parents to pay maintenance. If you broadly support that approach, do you think that any changes need to be made to the Bill as a result?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Before I ask the others to comment—perhaps they can comment on this piece as well—do you see any evidence from the work that you do with families and both, if you like, the remnants of the Child Support Agency and the new cases dealt with by CMEC that the accuracy of the assessments is such that the enforcement powers would be used accurately and that the right people would be targeted? Do you have any sense of that having improved?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

The second area that I wanted to touch on was part 4 of the Bill on birth registration. I want to get a quick sense of whether you think the provisions in the Bill will be effective in practice in encouraging fathers—that is whom it is largely aimed at—to take more responsibility, both in acknowledging their role as the father and in contributing.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I wanted to focus on responses in terms of the Bill’s effectiveness. My reading of the Bill—I am sure others will correct me if I am wrong—is that it is actually weak in terms of the compulsory element, because simply not knowing the father’s whereabouts is a sufficient reason for the mother not to put his name down. To be honest, I am not entirely sure that will make a terribly big impact on registration, but let us assume that it will. I just wanted to focus on its effectiveness, so your response was very helpful.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Mr. Nichols, may I take you back to something you said earlier? You said that there could be developmental issues, with children as I understood it, or problems with teenagers, that prevent a parent of young children from preparing for work. Will you elaborate on what those problems might be?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

First, the scientific evidence is far from conclusive, as I think you would agree. Secondly, we are talking about single parents going to work when their children are seven. I have two questions for you that follow from that.

First, how are the issues you are raising different in developmental terms for children with single parents as opposed to those who are fortunate enough to have two parents present? Secondly, once children are at school—at seven, they should be quite settled at primary school because they will have been there for two years—how does a parent not being at work affect their development?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

No, I want Mr. Nichols to answer first if you do not mind. The question was to him.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

But not full-time work.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Would you then argue that all women—all single parents are not women, but most of them are—should stay at home with young children?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Why are you arguing that for single parents then?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Most do not have a choice. Firms that keep in touch with staff who are on maternity or paternity leave, to keep them in touch with the workplace until they are ready to go back to work, are considered to be following good practice, are they not? So why do you feel it is wrong to have a system that keeps single parents who are not working in touch with the world of work until it is time for them to go back to work?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

I do not think you are.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

What would you say to women in my constituency, of whom there are quite a lot, who are holding down one or two jobs to keep their family going, as to why single parents should not take steps to make themselves ready for work at an appropriate time?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

The evidence that we were given earlier suggested that most single parents would like to get back into work, and we all accept that. The difficulty is with those who will not engage with the system. What would be your answer about them? Should we leave them and their children in workless families, with the effect that will have on their children as they grow up?

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Well, the only thing I can say is that you may not have liked it, but it clearly led you to a decent career.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I wanted to come back to joint birth registration, about which the witnesses have not had much to say. I want to explore it a bit more from the angle of the rights of the child. It seems to me that regardless of the father’s background, and even in situations where a father is violent and it may not be desirable for him to have contact with his child, it is a fundamental right for every person to know who their biological parents are. Wherever possible, we should try to achieve that. There is extensive research about the importance of such knowledge; for example, research on people who were adopted, some of whom want to find out who their parents were. Therefore, I am a little surprised that you seem to be as hands-off as you are on the question.

Mark Harper asked about the effectiveness of the legislation and whether it would work, but I want to push this a little further. Is it intrinsically important to children that they have written down somewhere who their parents are?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

But you are not arguing with the principle that it is desirable to have the name of both parents on a birth certificate?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I perfectly accept that you may want to say that a convicted paedophile who has a child and is deemed to be extremely dangerous to children should never have contact with the child while they are a child. None the less, it does not mean that the name should not appear on the birth certificate, however difficult that information is. It is what follows that matters. I am somewhat surprised that there is not a bit more thinking on some of these issues and how we might achieve that desirable outcome while safeguarding children.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

But you do not have any alternative proposals.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Do you not think that stating in legislation what we should aim to achieve will begin to change the view in society? Instead of saying that something is okay, that it does not matter, society will say that it is important to have both the names on the certificate.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Does anyone else have a view?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I have a couple of questions for Mr. Nichols, although some were covered by my colleague Helen. You said that introducing any kind of conditionality for single parents of children as young as three was at too young an age. Could you amplify your reasons why?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

What was it about the age of three that you thought was too young?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

But you understand that the directions would only be to implement an action plan that the parent had already agreed to, and that the White Paper makes it clear that there would never be a direction that forced a parent to work if their child were under seven, or to put the child into child care that they thought inappropriate? Do you accept that?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

Have you read the White Paper? Are you and your organisation aware that the directions would apply only to an agreed action plan between the parent and the adviser and could never force a parent to take up work or to put their child into inappropriate child care? I am asking you whether your organisation is aware of that.

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

Do you think that there is a difference in the neurological development of a child if their parent chooses to work or not?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

I am sorry; I was simply quoting a phrase that I thought you had used. Perhaps I shall ask a blunt question, if I may. Do you think that our proposals will damage the neurological development of children?

Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)

Time is pressing, so I shall move on. You said that lone parents who move into work do not gain anything in terms of income, and that all they gain—I wrote it down—is a net loss of time. Could you explain what evidence you have for that?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. Sadly, I have to halt proceedings there. It has been a very interesting session. I thank all our witnesses for their time and for their contributions.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Professor Gregg, will you kindly introduce yourself to the Committee?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you. Before colleagues ask questions, will you kindly comment on the Bill?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you. Mr. Harper.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I just wanted to touch on two things in your report. The first is about what age a child has to reach before single parents are expected to move into or prepare for work, which was probably the most publicised bit and I do not know whether you were happy about that. They are your progression-to-work group, and I would like to touch on the extent to which you felt that sanctions and compulsion was appropriate for parents of children of those ages.

The second extract is your recommendations, which are partly taken up in the White Paper and the Bill, about the funding models of welfare to work and about the split between annually managed expenditure and departmental expenditure limit; using benefit savings to fund programmes.

I will begin by addressing the first point. I was not entirely clear about something in your report on the progression to work group. What was reported was that you had said that parents of children as young as one would be expected to take part in activity to prepare them for work at a later date. I was not quite clear about something. I think you said that parents of children between one and three would be in a more “relaxed” category. I was not quite sure about that. Perhaps you could elaborate on that, so that the members of the Committee are clear about your views, what you said in your report and the extent to which that may or may not have informed what is in the Bill.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Just to be clear about the timeline, at what age for the child do you think that parents on benefit ought to be compelled to look for work? Also, how long a run-up period, as it were, is reasonable to deal with some of their skill issues and some of the underlying problems that they may need to overcome to prepare them for work? In other words, if you say that getting them into work when the child is seven is appropriate and, say, two years was the period to deal with some of their underlying issues—there would clearly be different periods in different cases—then you would start the process when the child was five. I am just working out how far you go back for that run-up period—or is it not that straightforward?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

So, to clarify what you feel is appropriate to be mandatory, the mandatory piece should be the engagement of the parent, with the adviser, to have the conversation?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

And to agree on a plan?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

As far as you are concerned, the personalisation bit is key to the mandatory bit. If you did the mandatory bit with some sort of prescribed solution, that would not be the right thing to do.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Mr. Amess, I will come back to my other point. I think I will wait and see how things develop.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I think it was enough from me for the moment.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

In your report, Professor Gregg, you state the conditions you think are necessary to achieve a radically reformed welfare system, as you put it—that is your word. You have three things: the vision of engagement and support; the system whereby that engagement reflects the needs and capabilities of the individual; and thirdly giving the claimants an ownership of this process.

Now, all that focuses on the claimant. You and we are talking about the concept of work-readiness. Where does the employer’s vision fit into that? We have a lot of experience of the welfare system thinking it knows what work-readiness is and turning out claimants deemed work-ready but the employer receiving that person saying they are not. An employer’s vision is important, is it not, because if we are to translate all this work into jobs there has to be real employability from the perspective of the employer. How important should their view be and how do you fit it into this kind of welfare system?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I appreciate your emphasis on that from the point of view of dealing with whether employers have prejudices about certain groups coming into their work force, and it is relevant that you should talk about that. It was not exactly where I was coming from. I have conversations with employers in my constituency all the time. The sort of issues they raise are not so much to do with that but to do with the attitude that someone might arrive with, communication skills and concepts of team working. They say people arrive allegedly labelled “work-ready” but with no concept of things like that. If we are going to make this work in significant numbers, what I am trying to get you to address is how we can bring in those who know about that and have skills in transmitting those aptitudes to be part of a welfare system preparing people for work on a large scale—possibly larger than first envisaged—as this will start to come into effect, hopefully, as we are coming out of recession.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

The point that I am trying to establish is that I think you are saying that it is important to have a lot of employer involvement in the whole process, and that the more there is, the more effective the welfare side can be to achieve the job outcomes that we want.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

In your view, there is an important progression-to-work group, which comes between people who are ready for work and should be looking for work, and people for whom no conditionality should be applied. The large progression-to-work group consists of people on the journey to work, whether lone parents or people in receipt of employment and support allowance. You will be aware that we have a problem with many people who have claimed employment and support allowance—incapacity benefit as was—for a long time, many of them for more than five years. You will be aware of the statistics on that. Do you see them as full members of the progression-to-work group of whom the same should be expected as of other members of the group, and that the conditions should be applied to them as well?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Should long-term employment and support allowance claimants be full members of the progression-to-work group on the journey to work alongside everyone else, and receive the same help as everyone else, subject to the same conditions?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

In principle you see that as full membership?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

There has been a problem over the years. Things have been done for new people coming on to employment and support allowance, but a stock has been allowed to develop which is now a substantial part of it.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

It is 1.5 million, I think.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

We have discussed sanctions a lot today. Views have been expressed by a number of organisations that the way forward is not sanctions but nurturing and encouragement. Clearly some of the witnesses have not experienced doors being shut in their faces in the way that I have in relation to things that you are trying to get people to do. I should be interested to hear your views on sanctions. What do think their role is? How can they be used in a way that will be effective in encouraging more people into work?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

That is really helpful. I have a final related question, on the concerns that have been voiced about the power of advisers. How does the system protect itself from unreasonable advisers who are not following the process as you are, which suggests that they are incapable of managing a complex process?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

My question follows on well from Meg Munn’s questions. It is on the link between aspiration and delivery. There is a lot of aspiration in your report, which to a certain extent is reflected in some aspects of the Bill. But on delivery, my impression is that we are in what you rather imaginatively described as the shake-out model. Do you think that the way in which support will be delivered, through a flexible new deal, will deliver the aspiration that you started off with? I refer to your aspiration for the long-term unemployed, the support starting after six months, the great fears about parking for those who are furthest from the market, and the opposite of that—the creaming-off of the best in order to get them through. Are the delivery mechanisms adequate to deliver your aspiration?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

There are culture change elements to your weddedness to the black box approach. Do you think there is enough acceptance of that being a black box approach, both amongst the DWP and the market as a whole, so that it is a pure black box? It has always struck me that you cannot have a half-black box in this. That position is probably the most comfortable for officials.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Earlier, you were discussing monetary and non-monetary interventions. That is interesting. I think a lot of people are open to conditionality, but they are asking, if there are financial sanctions and people are already on a fairly minimum income, what happens to those people and how can they live if their minimum income is taken away?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

So, are you saying that you would not use monetary sanctions at all on a vulnerable group such as that?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Okay. Even for the job-ready group, would there not be a knock-on effect on children, for example, and child poverty aims?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Are there any other colleagues who wish to put any questions to Professor Gregg?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

As we have time, I shall follow up the issues in relation to people with learning disabilities. For a long time I have been concerned about the tendency to find things for people to do that are not necessarily related to their capabilities or what they can do. I have seen some good examples in my own city of people doing voluntary work that could perhaps lead to paid employment. There is still a real need for a change of mindset, so that we see people as having some skills and capabilities, rather than just finding them something to do with their days. I should be interested to hear your views on that. Because there is such a lot of discussion about these issues, including sanctions and the like, often people who have not been in work and have not had any help to identify how they could do something, either in the paid sector or the voluntary sector, end up being extremely frightened of what might happen to them in this process. I should also like to hear your thoughts on how that can be dealt with.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

That does make sense.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Thank you very much indeed, Professor Gregg, for the time that you have spent with the Committee this afternoon and for your evidence. We are very grateful.