There is a Lords Committee called the MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE.
There remit is to scrutinise Statutory Instruments.
In his appearance before the DWP Select Committee on 19 March 2012 it was pointed out to the Grayling, a man who never knowingly tells the truth, that the DWP regulations and guidance around MWRA were of concern.
Instruments Drawn To The Special Attention of The House
Annexe
Twenty-seventh Report
Instruments Drawn To The Special Attention of The House
The Committee has considered the following instruments and has
determined that the special attention of the House should be drawn to
them on the grounds specified.
A. Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations
2011 (SI 2011/688)
Date laid: 14 March 2011
Parliamentary Procedure: negative/
Summary: Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached to
this instrument the information it contains is very vague. Subsequent
questions asked by the Committee have produced little more clarity.
Given that the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any
element of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme to which they are referred
is the loss of 3 months’ benefit, the content and operation of the
Scheme should be much more clearly set out. The degree of flexibility
and discretion built into the arrangements causes the Committee to
question how it can be delivered with any degree of consistency. Unlike
its predecessor, the Work for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small
pilot exercise but will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC
report on the proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular
the lack of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or
punishment.
The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has
been given insufficient information to understand the policy objective
of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; and effectively to
assess whether the outcome will help claimants to improve their
prospects of obtaining employment.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on
the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be
of interest to the House and they may imperfectly achieve the policy
objective.
1. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has laid this instrument
under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the
Social Security Act 1998 and the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as modified by the
Welfare Reform Act 2009) along with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). A
report by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), a statutory
consultee has been published with the instrument (“the Act Paper”).[1
<#note1>] The Committee also sought further evidence from the DWP. Their
response is printed in Appendix 1.
Purpose of the scheme
3. This is not stated clearly or consistently. Paragraph 2 of the EM says:
“This scheme is aimed at those who require extra support to help them
re-focus their approach to job search and gain work-related disciplines.
The purpose of the Scheme is to provide work or work-related activity
with a view to assisting the customer to improve their prospects of
obtaining employment.”
But the Departmental Memorandum to the SSAC states:
“Jobcentre Plus advisers have clearly identified a small number of
Jobseeker’s Allowance customers who may be doing only the very bare
minimum to comply with the requirement that they actively seek work.
Advisers have made clear that a programme that allowed them to actively
intervene at an early stage with these specific customers could have a
positive impact…. This small minority requires active engagement
though a mandatory programme, in order to reorient their mindset and
change their approach to their search for work” (para 2.2)
4. The SSAC’s letter to the Secretary of State included in the Act
Paper states explicitly the concerns of consultees that the scheme
appears to be a punishment rather than a way to help people improve
their skills and help them back into work (paragraphs 4.4 & 5.2). This
view is underpinned by the very strict sanction régime – failure to
participate fully in the 4-week scheme without good cause results in a
3-month benefit sanction. Failure to participate following a second
referral to a scheme would result in loss or reduction of JSA for 6
months. Unusually, the claimant cannot avert the penalty by re-engaging
with the scheme, and the first sanction is more severe than for other
circumstances where the length of an initial penalty for failing to meet
particular requirements is more normally 2 weeks’ loss of benefit.
5. The DWP disputes this, stating in their response: “the Mandatory
Work Activity Scheme is not a sanction or a punishment but has been
developed in recognition that some customers require additional
support.” (paragraph 16, Act Paper). DWP go on to argue that “after
their four week placement, they will be better placed to re-assess their
approach and engage more effectively with the requirements of seeking
work and the other support offered by Jobcentre Plus” (paragraph 21, Act
Paper). The Committee asked DWP to provide evidence to support this
assertion and they responded “Mandatory Work Activity is a new scheme
and therefore we have limited evidence.” The Department did express its
intention to collect evaluation data but current plans are imprecise and
no timetable is given.
/Content of the scheme/
6. The SSAC is sceptical that the Scheme will improve claimants’
prospects of obtaining employment in line with the provisions of the
Act. “Published evidence is at best ambivalent about the chances of
‘workfare’ type activity improving outcomes for people who are out of
work” (SSAC letter, paragraph 4.2). The Department’s own research on
similar schemes overseas indicates that “there is little evidence that
workfare increased the likelihood of finding work” unless conditions are
as close to work as possible.[2 <#note2>] The effectiveness of the
Scheme may therefore depend on the nature of the activities, but
material in the EM and the Act Paper gives very little indication of
what claimants on the scheme might actually be asked to do. Given that
the Departmental tender for providers went out on 14 February and the
scheme is intended to commence on 25 April, the Committee asked DWP
officials if they could provide some examples of actual schemes. DWP said:
“The contracting process for Mandatory Work Activity has not yet been
completed, contracts will be awarded in April 2011.
We have not asked bidders to specify the placements that they propose to
find for customers; instead we will rely on their ability to source
appropriate placements throughout the life of the contracts. This is in
keeping with changes across the Department, which focus on allowing as
much flexibility as possible to consider what will best support customers.
However, all the placements that the providers find must offer people
the opportunity to gain fundamental work disciplines, as well as being
of benefit to local communities. The Department has stipulated that each
provider will be expected to have placements available across a range of
sectors.”
*The House may wish to press the Department for further detail.*
7. These Regulations bear similarities to the Work for Your Benefit
regulations which the Committee considered last year,[3 <#note3>]
although they were not actually implemented and the current Regulations
revoke that scheme. One of the key concerns at that time was that
providers should not exploit participants as a source of cheap labour
and that participants would gain relevant skills from the experience.
These concerns remain for the replacement Scheme set out in the current
Regulations. The Work for Your Benefit Scheme differed in that it was
based on a randomised selection process and was a small pilot scheme
with a clear evaluation plan aimed at examining whether mandatory work
activity had demonstrable benefits. That evidence was not obtained but
the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is being introduced nationally from
the start of May 2011.
/Selection of participants/
8. Whatever the Department’s intention, a key factor in the way the
scheme will work in practice is the way in which a customer can be
selected for participation in the scheme. The Departmental Memorandum in
the Act Paper indicates that although under the Regulations advisers
will be able to send a customer to Mandatory Work Activity at any point
in their claim, they expect most referrals will be for customers who do
not find work quickly and have been unemployed for 13 weeks or more, but
this will normally not include people actively participating in other
elements of the Work Programme such as Work Club or Work Experience
(paragraph 4.1). DWP estimate that the Scheme will initially deliver
around 10,000 placements per year[4 <#note4>] but expects that this
number will increase because “the competition to deliver Mandatory Work
Activity asked bidders to maximise the number of places that they
offer”. No evidence is provided to explain how this scale of provision
has been assessed to meet the expected level of demand or need for the
scheme.
9. Detailed criteria on the basis for referral to a Mandatory Work
Activity are not included in the Regulations as DWP’s intention is to
allow Jobcentre Plus advisers discretion in deciding when a referral is
most appropriate. The Departmental Memorandum in the Act Paper indicates
that the Adviser will be required to consider whether the particular
activity is reasonable for the individual customer and to take into
account any circumstances that may affect a customer’s ability to
participate in the Scheme (for example childcare responsibilities).
10. The Committee has commented before on the great responsibility
placed on the individual Jobcentre Plus Adviser. We welcome the
intention stated at paragraph 30 of the DWP’s response to the SSAC that,
as an additional safeguard, once a personal Adviser has identified that
a customer may be suitable for the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme they
will be encouraged to discuss the appropriateness of the referral with
their Adviser Manager who will decide whether to approve the referral.
However we note that this safeguard is indicated as recommended best
practice rather than a statutory requirement.
11. As the Guidance to Advisers is an important element of
understanding how the Scheme will work the Committee asked to see the
extract from the guidance that sets out how Advisers will identify
claimants as being suitable for referral to mandatory work activity. DWP
replied:
“The Department is currently in the process of finalising the guidance
for Jobcentre Plus advisers, and so is unable to share an example of the
Guidance with the Committee. However, we are able to share the high
level principles that will be used to identify suitable customers.
Jobcentre Plus advisers will consider evidence demonstrated by the
customer against a set of standards to make constant judgements about
whether the customer would benefit from the Mandatory Work Activity
support. These standards will be underpinned by indicating behaviours
associated with the disciplines that are key requirements of finding,
securing and retaining employment. Customers who consistently fail to
demonstrate a number of these indicators over a period of time will be
considered for a referral to Mandatory Work Activity.
Some of the indicators Jobcentre Plus advisers may include:
* tends to take no personal responsibility for job search activity,
waits to be organised/contacted;
* reluctant to make speculative approaches, follow up advice or job
leads;
* regularly fails to attend appointments and interviews on time;
* has little or no recent work experience;
* limited awareness of the types of support available to help them
with their jobsearch; and
* has no realistic appreciation of employer attitudes or requirements.”
12. We are concerned that the EM attached to the instrument mentions
that this Guidance to Advisers will be issued via the intranet. To
reduce the likelihood of appeals and to ensure that the guidance is
applied with transparent fairness it would be appropriate for it to be
made available to the public.
/Conclusion/
13. Although there is a considerable amount of paper attached to this
instrument the information it contains is very vague. Subsequent
questions asked by the Committee have produced little more clarity.
Given that the sanction on the individual claimant for failing in any
element of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme to which they are referred
is the loss of 3 months’ benefit, the content and operation of the
Scheme should be much more clearly set out. The degree of flexibility
and discretion built into the arrangements causes the Committee to
question how it can be delivered with any degree of consistency. Unlike
its predecessor, the Work for Your Benefit Scheme, this is not a small
pilot exercise but will be implemented nationally from May. The SSAC
report on the proposal highlights a number of concerns, in particular
the lack of clarity about whether the scheme is intended as training or
punishment. *The Committee considers it unacceptable that the House has
been given insufficient information to understand the policy objective
of the scheme; to determine how the scheme will work; and effectively to
assess whether the outcome will help claimants to improve their
prospects of obtaining employment.
