Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Bates

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

I am grateful to the Minister for that very helpful suggestion. For the avoidance of doubt, the intention of our amendments is to treat school environments and supported accommodation environments pari passu within the legislation so that they are on a par. I am agnostic about where the provision lies as long as they are treated equally across the legislative platform.

The other thing, of course, is that there is a different set-up in Scotland. I hope that the offer the Minister has made to write would be to other jurisdictions and criminal justice systems within the United Kingdom—if he has that power.

[Lord Bates]

I am looking for counsel from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, as a former Lord Advocate, as to whether we have that power. We talked about that yesterday. I think Scotland is in the process of establishing a sentencing council—

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Bates

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

Of course, and I remind my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern that, within the sentencing guidelines, there would be the ability for some of these factors to be spelled out. The awareness would be there and I am very sensitive to that. Having used the case of Canterbury, where one of these head shops was within 100 yards of the King’s School—just across the road from it—that is precisely the type of circumstance we are trying to get to. But in the normal way it would be open to the sentencing court, having regard to the relevant sentencing guidelines, to take any other aggravating factors into consideration. In updating its guidelines, the Sentencing Council in England and Wales may wish to reflect on the points raised in this debate. I might add that any prisoner who commits any offence under the Bill could be subject to additional punishments and restrictions through existing prison disciplinary procedures. For the purpose of the Bill we should be guided by the equivalent provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act, notwithstanding Amendment 108, which seeks to bring the 1971 Act into line with Amendment 42.

There is also one government amendment in this group. Amendment 43 is a technical amendment that seeks to correctly reference the second aggravating offence in Clause 6 with the corresponding offence in Clause 5. Clause 6 creates two aggravating conditions which a court must consider when passing sentence. It states:

“Condition A is that the offence was committed on or in the vicinity of school premises at a relevant time … Condition B is that … the offender used a courier who, at the time the offence was committed, was under the age of 18”.

Amendment 43 relates to condition B.

Clause 6(6)(a) provides that a person uses a courier if the person,

“causes or permits another person … to deliver a psychoactive substance”.

However, and rightly, a person can commit an offence of offering to supply a psychoactive substance in Clause 5(2) without there being any psychoactive substance in existence. The offence would be committed if an offer was made to supply a psychoactive substance but a non-psychoactive substance was in fact supplied. As we discussed in the previous group, it could be a packet of some benign white powder being passed off as a psychoactive substance. In such a case the requirement in Clause 6(6)(a) would not be met. Amendment 43 simply ensures that condition B operates as intended.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Government are actively tackling the issue of new psychoactive substances in prisons and that, on that basis, he will be content to withdraw his amendment. Within that, I extend to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, the same offer which has been extended to other Members: to have that meeting with the Children’s Society to explore this area and, having heard its experiences, to consider whether further action is needed.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

I hope I can say on behalf of the Bishops’ Bench that the offer of a meeting is welcome. If we can do that in association with the Children’s Society, that meets our immediate request and I would be happy to operate on that basis.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Bates

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

That is mandatory, is it not, at least for the male Members? I would certainly not dream of turning up in our ceremonial gowns. They would probably think it was Christmas and misunderstand what was coming.

Education is not just for teachers and it is for all of us, including the media, to ensure positive role models. As a parent and grandparent, I think children often respond best to very clear messages. Ambiguous messages which say, “This might be okay or it might not—take it along to a testing station”, or “This might be against the law or it could be legal”, spread confusion which is unhelpful to pupils and teachers.

Drug education is part of the national curriculum for science at key stages 2 and 3. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said that if we made this a key performance indicator then schools would start taking in seriously. It is already, in a way, because to be judged outstanding by Ofsted you must be able to demonstrate with great clarity that pupils are safe and feel safe at all times and that they understand how to keep themselves and others safe in different situations and settings. We need to explore further whether inspectors follow that in every school but the bones of what is necessary are there.

We have had some excellent contributions and discussions. As I flagged up earlier, we have a further meeting on 7 July. We have invited Public Health England to be represented at that, as well as the Department for Education. That will be a useful opportunity to explore these issues.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

The Minister is very solicitous of the questions thrown at him. I understand that there is a difficult Budget coming, and that Ministers are in purdah before that, but what expectation would he have of getting a realistic increase, in the course of the next spending review, in the money available for this important educational work in this public policy field?

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Bates

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend asserts that the Misuse of Drugs Act has failed. You can of course observe and point to the availability and prevalence of drugs within society and draw some conclusions, but one cannot make a direct comparison because, had the Misuse of Drugs Act not been in place in 1971, perhaps that situation and the situation that we are trying to address might be a whole lot worse.

What can you do in government? You can look at issues. We have parents, including Maryon Stewart, and the Angelus Foundation coming to us and urging us to take action and clamp down on these drugs. We read in our regional and national newspapers of horrendous situations—young lives lost and blighted. We see new drugs come on to the market branded as “plant food” and “not fit for human consumption”, as if that gets the sellers off the hook of their moral responsibility for what they are selling. Are we supposed to say “No, we do not take any action”, simply because there is an availability of drugs in society? Well, the Government do not take that view and nor did the expert panel, the Home Affairs Select Committee or any of the mainstream political parties in their manifestos. I am sure that this debate will go on, and it is good that we do this. I will now try to address some more of the particular points raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend argued the case and called for a more regulatory approach. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the expert panel considered the regulatory model along with others in operation in different jurisdictions, and concluded that it presented significant practical difficulties. Trying to define what we mean by low-harm substances would be a legislative and scientific minefield. For many substances, the evidence of chronic harm can take years to emerge, as can dependence potential. It is not clear how the harms could be properly assessed to medicine standards without animal and human trials. Do we really want to contemplate further animal testing for these purposes? I also remind the House that there have been no applications for licences in New Zealand—further evidence, if it were needed, of the difficulties of going down the regulatory route.

The question of definition was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The Bill is designed to capture substances supplied for human consumption that have a psychoactive effect. Its aim is to capture substances that are not currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 but that, as with all drugs, carry health risks when misused. Many new psychoactive substances are still legal due to the speed at which they are produced, with manufacturers inventing new substances by tweaking chemical formulas, as I already mentioned.

The point about criminalising young people was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, again from her deep experience in this area. I assure her and other noble Lords that there is no question of criminalising the users of psychoactive substances. As proposed by the expert panel, the Bill is focused on the trade in these substances: those who manufacture, import, distribute or sell new psychoactive substances. The Bill contains no offence in relation to simple possession—a point welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. As she suggested, for young people tempted to use new psychoactive substances our focus must be on prevention and, where necessary, treatment. I look forward in Committee to setting out in more detail the comments in that expert panel report on the work that will need to go hand in hand with education and health prevention available to people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, argued in favour of the Irish approach. The Bill is closely modelled on that approach. I will come back to that specific point about the Irish definition.

The impact on research was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lady Browning. A number of noble Lords sought reassurance about the impact of the Bill on legitimate research. I can indeed offer such reassurance. Research that does not involve the human consumption of a psychoactive substance would not be caught by the provisions of the Bill. Where research has reached the stage of clinical human trials, Schedule 1 to the Bill exempts investigational medicinal products from the scope of a psychoactive substance. This includes active substances being used in such trials. If further latitude for research were needed, the regulation-making power in Clause 10 enables us to exclude specified activities from the ambit of the offences.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the issue of keeping the list of exempted substances under review. He asked about the process for ensuring that the list of exempted substances in Schedule 1 is kept up to date. We believe that the list will be relatively stable. Indeed, Ireland has not needed to amend its equivalent list in the five year since its legislation was enacted. I should add that we are not legislating here for a regulatory regime for new psychoactive substances; there is no provision in the Bill to enable the licensing of so-called low-harm substances, and the regulation-making power in Clause 3 is not designed for that purpose.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Farmer asked about the implementation of the Bill. We are working with the police, the National Crime Agency and the Border Force on implementation, including the development of appropriate guidance, and we will extend those discussions to the Local Government Association—another organisation that is actually being supportive of the Government’s approach here. We are also ready to work with other bodies, such as the Association of Convenience Stores, to provide bespoke guidance for their members. A very good point was made about what we are doing to engage with countries that lead in supplying these things, such as India and China. I do not have an answer to that, but I shall write to noble Lords about that in further correspondence.

I mentioned the cross-European approach. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked whether we could be more specific about when the ACMD is due to report. NICE and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency have published advice to clinicians on how to help people to withdraw from medicines to which they are addicted. Public Health England has produced advice to commissioners on how to assess the need in their area for specialist services to help people to withdraw from medicines to which they are addicted.

I am conscious that there are a number of issues that I have not had time properly to address here, and I shall be very happy to write a follow-up letter to begin a discussion with colleagues, and perhaps to arrange, ahead of Committee, meetings between interested Peers and some of the experts from whom we have taken our opinion. I am very happy to give an undertaking to do that. With those assurances—

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

The Minister has been very solicitous in answering the legitimate questions that have been asked. It would help me enormously to prepare mentally for Committee if he could give me some idea of what he would consider success to look like over the next five or 10-year period, should this Bill become an Act.

[Lord Bates]

There is some of that in the impact statement, although I accept that it may not be as much as noble Lords would like. However, I am very happy to see whether we can go back and see what extra we can produce in answer to that very specific question. I shall write or provide further comment in Committee. But in the light of those remarks and those commitments—

Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Bates

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, a number of questions have been asked. I have counted 19, which compares to the five that were asked when these regulations were scrutinised in the other place. I am sure that that is a reflection of the quality and expertise, if not the viewing habits, of the members of the respective committees. I confess that at one point last night I was not sure whether the scoreline reflected the football match I was watching or the judgment of the Supreme Court which happened to be open on my lap at the same time.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

That was 4-1.

[Lord Bates]

At half time.

There are many questions and I want to try to address as many of them as possible to get the responses on the record for people to scrutinise. First, my noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked how many schemes were affected by the clarified money-purchased benefits definition. It has not been possible to quantify the exact number of the affected schemes as trustees and scheme managers are only required to make detailed reports to the pensions regulator on benefits that they consider to be non-money purchase. Schemes are not required to provide detailed reports of benefits that they consider to be money purchase, so any information held by the regulator here is self-reported by the scheme on a voluntary basis.

We consulted extensively on this point, and the regulator has also tried to secure additional data. However, stakeholders have been unable to share with us the detailed scheme-level data because that information is sensitive and restricted. A small number of consultation responses indicated the size of the scheme and the potential costs involved. However, the information is not representative of all the schemes affected, and cannot be reliably used to produce an aggregate estimate. The DWP continues to work with the regulator to identify and communicate with effective schemes to establish more comprehensive data on how many schemes are to be affected.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood also asked whether with the new definition the Government are adding costs and increasing the administrative burden on the schemes. I can assure my noble friend that that is not the case. Although the clarified definition is retrospective to 1 January 1997, in most cases the regulations modify the retrospective application of regulatory legislation so that schemes will not need to look back at events where benefits could fall into a category affected by the Bridge judgment or the clarified definition in Section 29. The clarified definition will mean that the member benefits are protected. The transitional measures will bring schemes into compliance, are proportionate and bear in mind the risks and the burdens on members, schemes and employers. We believe that that is the sensible approach, precisely because the Government want to minimise the additional requirements on schemes without jeopardising the protection of the scheme’s members.

My noble friend also asked why the Government insisted on a change of definition, and asked whether the Supreme Court decision was wrong. The Supreme Court judgment concerned two specific scheme benefit types: benefits which provided a guaranteed pot, otherwise known as cash balance benefits, and pensions in payment from schemes derived from money purchase benefits, both of which the court decided could be money purchase. The decision meant that some guaranteed benefits from outside the regulatory regime conflicted with the Government’s view of what constituted a money purchase benefit.

Why are the regulations not together? The department’s advice was that both sets of regulations would be debated together subject to the affirmative procedure. However, following comment from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the department decided to split the regulations. However, we expect that because both sets are closely linked together, the discussion will encompass transitional arrangements for both regulations.

I have addressed the question of why there are two separate regulations, but I will add one additional point. It has been necessary to divide regulations in that way because the primary legislation under which the regulations have been made—Section 33 of the Pensions Act 2011—provides a different parliamentary procedure for regulations which amend primary legislation. I appreciate that that procedural requirement has not made discussion and debate in this area easier, but I am happy for this debate to encompass both sets of regulations, as it has already done. On why the clarified definition of money purchase benefits is retrospective to 1 January 1997, the Government have decided on retrospection to that date so that the effect of the clarified definition coincided with the inception of key pension protection legislation. Provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 largely came into force in April 1997, hence the chosen date, but retrospection was set up on 1 January 1997 as the financial assistance scheme eligibility began for schemes which started winding up from that date. However, since the Pensions Act 2011 was passed, we have no evidence that any of the schemes in this position would have been affected by the Bridge Trustees judgment or Section 29.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether there was a pre-existing requirement to have benefits valued consistently with legislative requirements in the past. Some schemes may have valued in a way that was not consistent with those requirements. Evidence from the consultations showed that members’ benefits which here are affected by Section 29 and the regulations might have been revalued by the application of notional interest or investment return. It is possible that this would have been less than revaluation in accordance with statutory requirements. However, we had to balance the protection of members against avoiding administrative complexity for schemes. Evidence suggested that the cost of applying revaluation arrangements would outweigh the benefit to members.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also asked what the new cash balance method was. The new cash balance method is based on an existing flat rate method, which requires deferred members to receive any increases that they would have received if they had still been active members of the scheme. She also asked why there is no requirement to revisit the scheme if it is wound up. If the scheme is still being wound up at the time that the regulations come into force and is underfunded, trustees will be required to revisit an employer debt before the regulations come into force. If the scheme has completed winding up when the regulations come into force, there is no scheme in existence to unwind; all the assets of the scheme have been dispersed. The regulations therefore do not require a scheme that has completed winding up to be unpicked.

A question was asked about why schemes newly eligible for the Pension Protection Fund will not be treated as such until 1 April 2015. That date marks the beginning of the first full levy year after these regulations are planned to be in force. The delay will allow the schemes time to correctly determine whether they are eligible for the fund and to carry out the necessary valuations on which the first levy bill will be based. It also ensures that schemes will not be required to pay the levy in respect of past periods. It would not be fair to other levy payers to provide protection for an earlier period for a scheme that has not paid any levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the question of flipping. The department’s consultation exercise did not identify any scheme that will become newly eligible for the Pension Protection Fund that has a sponsoring employer likely to become insolvent in that small window of time. If such an event does occur, the Government will give consideration to the most appropriate way of protecting scheme members. It would therefore not be fair to other pension protection levy payers to protect the members of a scheme in respect of a period of time when the scheme had not paid into any levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether once the regulations are in force it would still be possible to change the scheme benefits without member consent from one form of non-money purchase arrangement to another with a lesser benefit promise. A change of this nature—a detrimental modification under Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995—would still be subject to a requirement that the value of the members’ rights or benefits was not less than before the change. If this requirement were not met, the change would be subject to being made void by the Pensions Regulator.

The noble Baroness also suggested that there were insufficient data for the Government to be able to conclude that there will be a negligible effect. Section 67 will continue to apply except in very limited circumstances where schemes have changed benefits from cash balance to money purchase. This circumstance is catered for in the negative set of regulations, which require the actuarial calculation between cash balance and benefits collected in the money purchase schemes to be maintained. In addition, the trustee approval and reporting requirements must have been satisfied.

The point was made that retrospection makes these regulations too complex. The clarified definition, when in force, will be retrospective to 1 January 1997. Retrospection to January 1997 is needed to protect the position of schemes that had taken decisions in accordance with the clarified definition in Section 29—that is, not in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment—but for schemes that have acted in accordance with the judgment, these regulations modify the application of regulatory legislation with retrospective effect and for the transitional period where necessary. The regulations cover the many different types of pension arrangements that currently exist and which could have been affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of Section 29.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Supervised Jobsearch Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Bates

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were debated in the other place on 30 June 2014, and I am satisfied that they are fully compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

With the labour market growing stronger and increasing numbers of companies able to hire workers, everybody who is able to should be able to share in this recovery by being supported to find, and stay in, work. Over the last four years, the Government have extensively altered the landscape of our employment support services, both in Jobcentre Plus and throughout contracted employment provision.

With the introduction of universal credit and the claimant commitment, there has been a cultural change in the expectations of claimants and a conscious shift towards full-time work search. It is right that we expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to find work, and this can be a full-time activity. At the same time, we are committed to doing what is best to support harder-to-help claimants to prepare for and find work. The Work Programme has been able to transform the lives of those furthest from the labour market. Performance is continually improving, and more than a quarter of jobseeker’s allowance claimants with sufficient time on the programme have spent at least three or six months in employment.

As part of our continuing commitment to supporting people off benefits and into work, the department is committed to continue testing what works best to assist jobseekers who are the hardest to help. This is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the supervised jobsearch pilots in October 2013. These pilot schemes will test what works and what does not. We will ask providers to deliver the pilots in five areas across England from autumn 2014 until spring 2015 and will be testing how best to deliver extra support to those claimants who need it. The aim of the pilots is to explore the impact on claimants of daily attendance, supervision and support for job searching. In terms of outcomes, we will look at how different interventions affect jobseeker motivation and confidence, as well as measuring the impact on claimants leaving benefits and moving into employment.

Participants will be referred to a supervised jobsearch for 13 weeks. We expect participants to move off the scheme within this period as they find work, but it is important to consider that these are claimants for whom finding work may take significantly longer than for others, and 13 weeks will give providers a reasonable amount of time to work with them to ensure that the support is effective. This approach will have a positive impact on moving claimants closer to, or into, employment. It will also give us the opportunity to add to our evidence base of what works for those who are among the most difficult to help.

Currently, claimants not yet referred to the Work Programme receive the Jobcentre Plus offer: a flexible and tailored menu of support led by work coaches who can, among other interventions, refer claimants to outside training and provision to address barriers. Claimants at risk of becoming long-term unemployed are supported by contracted providers through the Work Programme. These providers provide support to claimants, making use of local provision and services, and using a “black box” approach, with payment by results for getting people into sustained employment.

We always knew that some people would be returning from the Work Programme. Those who have participated in it and remain on benefits afterwards then receive a period of more intensive support from Jobcentre Plus. Since June 2013, claimants have been referred to the mandatory intervention regime, where advisers have more time to spend with claimants with complex needs. From April 2014, we have rolled out the help-to-work package, which added two other elements of support, on top of the mandatory intervention regime, for Work Programme returners. These were daily work search reviews, which take place over a period of up to three months, and community work placements, where claimants undertake work of community benefit for up to six months. These additional measures have given the clear message that we will not write anyone off and will continue to provide increasingly intensive support the longer that someone is out of the labour market.

The supervised jobsearch pilots will complement these measures we have taken in the current journey by maintaining momentum and motivation at a critical point in the claim. Pre-Work Programme claimants will be referred when they are three months away from a two-year mandatory referral to the Work Programme. This will apply to post-Work Programme claimants following six months of intensive support.

These regulations will allow the department to select and refer certain suitable claimants to participate in the pilots. Claimants will then attend the pilots for 35 hours each week for a 13-week period. Claimants will have to attend for fewer than 35 hours per week if they have any restrictions agreed in their claimant commitment. During this time, they will receive expert support and supervision from providers. This might include help with jobsearch, job goals, covering letters, job application skills and interview techniques. However, the exact provision will vary depending on the claimant’s needs and the individual provider running each pilot scheme.

We already expect claimants to do everything they reasonably can each week to give themselves the best prospects of securing employment. This covers not just work search but a whole range of activity to improve employability. The pilots are in line with this but, of course, if an individual cannot work full time—for example, because of agreed caring responsibilities—then we would expect them to participate in supervised jobsearch only on a part-time basis. Those selected for these pilots will at all times have access to facilities and staff to encourage and guide them along their journey.

None of the claimants eligible for these pilots will be new to the benefits system and will have spent the months prior to referral having their jobsearch monitored and skills levels gauged by Jobcentre Plus work coaches before reaching the point of being considered suitable for this extra support. Everyone goes into a new activity with different skill levels and learning styles, and looking for work is no different. Some individuals will have just emerged from jobs feeling confident in what they need to do and having contacts in the right places. Others may need more comprehensive help, support and guidance in order to seek out opportunities and prepare to present themselves again to prospective employers. This is what we are looking to provide through the supervised jobsearch pilots.

In order to inform the design of the pilots, we ran a supervised jobsearch test bed in Wolverhampton Jobcentre from December 2013 to February 2014. The test bed explored some aspects to inform these pilots, including confirmation that Jobcentre Plus is able to support this system. As a result of what we learnt from Wolverhampton, we have incorporated several elements into the pilots’ design, including: induction sessions to set clear expectations and assess individuals’ abilities; basic IT training; integrating group sessions and one-on-one support to retain claimants’ concentration and engagement; and supporting participants to focus on tailored, quality job applications.

It is right to expect people who are able to work to do all they can to find a job. This Government are committed to supporting people in this ambition. We know that our programme of support works well for most people. Two-thirds of people leave jobseeker’s allowance within the first 12 months, which is the most common work programme referral point. The claimant count has fallen for 19 consecutive months. We know there was support for the very long-term unemployed trailblazer, which ran from November 2011 to July 2012, but for those who reach long-term unemployment and are among the hardest to help, increasing the intensity of support improves their chances of moving into work. We know that jobseekers see the switch to the claimant commitment, with its focus on full-time job search, as something that will genuinely increase their chances of finding employment, while at the same time taking into account their personal circumstances. These pilots will test what can be achieved if we bring this knowledge of what works—tailored support, intensity and full-time activity—together in a way that is sensitive to individual needs.

I conclude by saying that we believe these pilots have potential to improve the employment prospects of those who are struggling in their search for work. That can be done through increased jobsearching ability, heightened confidence, more effective interaction with others and improved punctuality and time-keeping. The scheme has the potential to help people into sustained work, enabling them to increase their independence and build better lives for themselves, their families and communities. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the lucid way in which he introduced these important regulations. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Wise Group in Glasgow, which works in JSA service provision.

I am grateful also to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which looked at these regulations. It does excellent work; it is hard to overestimate the value it brings to some of these very complicated schemes. The committee came to the conclusion that it was not impressed. There are two issues here: the policy behind the pilot and the structure of the pilot—whether that is worth the candle. I want to rehearse some of its concerns, because they are self-evident to anybody who has studied these things. Pilots are very useful; they have played an important role in the past in developing policy and I am sure the Scrutiny Committee accepts that. But how do we expect to get real value out of something that starts on 6 October and ends on 15 April, when we are dealing with the possibility and the opportunity that these regulations provide, as the Minister rightly described, in helping people into sustainable work? In my book, sustainable work is a 12-month contract, with support that a jobseeker can take advantage of from being on benefits into that sustained job outcome. I have severe doubts, as does the Scrutiny Committee, that we will get anything of value in what I think is insufficient time. Why are we stopping on 15 April? Obviously, there is an election. I can see that coming—I am not that stupid. However, it is more important to get this policy right than to have niceties about purdah or any other technicality of that kind. I have serious doubts about what value we will get from the shortness of the period of the pilot. Indeed, client groups of 3,000 are not that useful, either. Before the debate started the Minister helpfully handed us a long list of exclusions of clients who cannot be included.

We have a very limited pilot here, and I think we could have had a much more useful opportunity to test some of these things. We have very minimal information about what will actually happen. Jobsearch is something that, if people have been in the Work Programme, should have been deployed for two years—and intensively, I would like to have thought. Now we have supervised jobsearch, which comes six months after two years so it will be really intense. The new system of Universal Jobmatch—which I have seen; it is very good—takes only about half an hour to prospect for jobs across the United Kingdom, because it is so efficient. This is a full-time commitment. People are being mandated to come in for 35 hours a week. How many hours will they spend over a Universal Jobmatch machine? They can get the full value out of it in half an hour, in my experience. It would help me to understand the value of these pilots better if the Minister could flesh out what would be done over this extended period of 13 weeks at 35 hours a week. What on earth are they going to do? We are told at paragraph 7.19 that:

“On day one, the provider must: assess the claimant’s skills and experience”,

et cetera. Then we are told:

“In week one, the provider must: carry out a number of activities with the claimant … On an ongoing basis, providers must: review and update the claimant’s portfolio, CV and action plan”.

These are things that I always assumed would be taken account of in the Work Programme anyway. Now they are doing it full time, for 35 hours a week for 13 weeks. I am in favour of providing support for people, but I do not know how that intense job-searching activity will look different from what they are supposed to have been doing for the previous two years.

I am interested in the pre-Work Programme group, because I do not understand where it came from. There is a logic to involving people who have been in the Work Programme. In any commonsense view, if someone has been unemployed for two years despite being in the Work Programme, in which they get a lot of help, it would suggest that more than their CV needs fixing. I do not know if it is possible to translate those people into the Troubled Families Programme; I hate that term, but the programme is interesting. It takes a holistic view, going beyond the front door of the family home, looking not just at the CV but at everything that is going on. Somebody who has been unemployed for two years despite the Work Programme’s assistance has got some serious issues behind the front door of the family home. It would be much more sensible for some of these people to at least be offered the option of taking a different route from that of looking at a Universal Jobsearch machine for 35 hours every week. That would drive me crazy.

The Scrutiny Committee says that there is scant information about the cost-benefit ratio for this. We have been told that there is a cap of £5,000 per head. I understand that if this is to be competitively tendered for, the department has got to be a bit canny in determining costs for contracts which will be bid for. However, Parliament requires a little more information, particularly given the department’s straitened circumstances, with departmental expenditure being squeezed so ruthlessly.

In passing, the whole-time staff equivalent costs are being substantially reduced. I looked at the annual report which came out a couple of days ago. In 2012, there were over 100,000 whole-time equivalent staff in the DWP. It fell to 98,000 in 2013. It is now 88,000. We are laying extra layers of responsibility on to a smaller cadre of hard-pressed staff. These job coaches will have their work cut out to do the work they already do on top of this pilot. The Minister was helpful in his introductory remarks, but any more information we can have about what will actually be done during this intensive period of job searching would certainly help me a lot.

I am looking at the Autumn Statement 2013, where the Chancellor said that,

“the Government will invest £700 million over 4 years in a new Help to Work scheme”.

He went on set out what that would do. He said it would,

“require all JSA claimants who are still unemployed after 2 years on the Work Programme to undertake intensive, often daily, activity to improve their employment prospects”

Is this part of that? Is this part of the £700 million four-year programme that the Chancellor set out in the Autumn Statement? I would like to know about that because, if it is, it would make it possible to place this pilot in a wider context. I must sit down. I have just realised how long I have been talking for.

My view about conditionality and support for getting people off welfare into work is captured accurately in the study that Paul Gregg did in 2008 for the previous Government. If the Minister will promise to read it at the weekend, I will say no more about it. That is a deal that he had better accept because, otherwise, it will take me another 20 minutes to explain its detail.

There are some opportunities here. I understand that. I am not against sanctions. I think sanctions should be restricted to a much smaller band of people than the 800,000 or 900,000 that we are headed towards. I am prepared to look at this. I know the Explanatory Memorandum states that the results of the evaluation will be published. I hope the Minister will confirm that on the record because that would give it some solidity and be an assurance. I hope this pilot produces something useful. I have great doubts that it will, but I understand why the Government are taking the powers they are taking. I wish the pilot well and I hope it works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

One of the experiences driven into my brain while working with the Wise Group is that there is a huge amount of ignorance about what is happening to some of these claimants. Some of that is because the letters sent to them are couched in language that is difficult to comprehend. Will the noble Lord pay special attention to making sure that the Queen’s English is used and that people understand exactly what they are being invited or required to do, and the consequences? The group that the Wise Group works with in Glasgow is often completely at sea about what is happening to them.

[Lord Bates]

We can certainly look at that. One of the reasons why it needs to be tailored, rather than just having a letter generated, is that a lot of those people will have literacy or numeracy problems. They cannot comprehend it, whatever form of English it happens to be delivered in. Therefore the ability to talk that through with someone in person, so that they can explain it at the meeting while giving claimants the formality of the letter, would seem to be the right way to do that.

In terms of how we will ensure quality of service throughout the contract, the majority of the payment made to providers will be based on service delivery. The standards of service delivery will be monitored throughout the contract and payment will be related to providers consistently meeting the required minimum service levels outlined in the specifications. In terms of what will happen if the work coach ignores the claimant’s view that they are not suitable, at the point of referral claimants will be able to make representations if they feel that a pilot will not be appropriate for them. The work coach would take this into account before making a referral. Where the work coach decides that a referral should nevertheless be made, the normal appeal route will be open to the claimant who refuses to attend and is sanctioned as a result.

In terms of varying periods and whether they will all be 35 hours, everyone will be attending for 35 hours unless they are not able to do so because of restrictions. That is the point that was made earlier. We acknowledge that people are caring for other people; for instance, there are parents caring for young children and they might have other responsibilities that are entirely legitimate and need to be built around. Again, that is the reason why it is a tailored and individual approach.