Oral evidence: Welfare to work, HC 363Monday 14 September 2015

Oral evidence, 14 September 2015.

Witnesses

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP, Minister for Employment, Matt Thurstan, Director, Senior Management and Business Management Team, Contracted Employment Provision Directorate, Department for Work and Pensions, and Iain Walsh, Director, Labour Market and International Affairs, Department for Work and Pensions, gave evidence.

Chair

Priti, welcome to the Committee. Would you like to, just for the record, say who you are and introduce your colleagues?

Priti Patel

Sure. I think I will let my colleagues introduce themselves, but my name is Priti Patel. I am the Minister for Employment, and my colleagues here from the Department this afternoon are Iain Walsh who works in Labour Market and Matt Thurstan is the Director of our Contracted Employment programme, but I will let them introduce themselves.

Chair

Very good. I was really pleased to be able to talk to you beforehand, Priti. The Government’s record in getting people into work is very similar to the previous Government’s, but you have done that at half the cost. We are now anxious for you to build on that success and we will be submitting a short report to you when we have finished taking our evidence. That is the background. We are really trying to find ways in which at the end of your stewardship in this Parliament the record will be even better than the last Government’s. So with that in mind, Debbie, will you kick off for us?

Debbie Abrahams

Good afternoon, Minister. As Frank has rightly said, the evidence from your own evaluation last year does show the success that the Work Programme has had, but it also shows that it has not been particularly successful in relation to people with long-term conditions and disabilities. For example, if we look at people with mental health problems the success rate is only about 8%. I wonder if you would accept now that the Work Capability Assessment has not been an accurate assessment of people’s needs, in particular in relation to their barriers to work, and that there does need to be an overhaul of the assessment process, as the Select Committee said over two years ago.

Priti Patel

Thank you for the question. I look at this in terms of the positives, in terms of what work has been undertaken to support people with barriers, disabilities, mental health and health conditions, to get into work. Obviously as the Chair of the Select Committee said, already the Work Programme has helped enormously to support people into work and we have had particular schemes and programmes focused on those with disability. What I would say is that of course there is always more to do in this space. I would like to share a couple of examples with the Committee. We know for a fact that there is definitely more to do in the area of mental health—people with not just mental health issues but other health conditions or addictions; those with complex needs and barriers. The challenge for us particularly as we look to develop the Work Programme and whatever comes after it is very much in terms of how we work across Government—so joint commissioning, and how we work with other Departments such as the Department of Health. We now have a joint unit within my Department and in Health as well, to focus on some of these really challenging areas. Of course the way you do that is by putting in more support and as we look at and explore options for the development of the Work Programme, diagnostic tools can capture information in relation to the individual, looking at the key characteristics and barriers. Then we can specifically tailor programmes and bespoke services, with the signposting that is required as well, to support that individual.

Debbie Abrahams

You might have heard or at least read the evidence from London and Manchester in, for example, the Working Well programme in Manchester. That is one example of a more holistic approach, but there is a growing evidence, is there not, Minister, of a more holistic, more health-first approach that has more specialist and individualised support? How will you be capturing some of the evidence from these pilots and other places? We already know that there are some NICE guidelines from, I think, 2010. Similar work has been undertaken in Durham. How will you be capturing this to recognise that people with long-term conditions, including mental health conditions and disabilities, particularly miss out? There has not been the success with the Work Programme for this group of people, so how will you be capturing that and making a more individualised health-first approach to support this group?

Priti Patel

The first thing to say is that what we are seeing in Manchester and Greater London—Manchester in particular, I think—is of great interest, certainly in terms of the work that we are doing, because of the way in which they are joining up. They are looking at bringing services together, so that they are able to focus on the individual, so that is absolutely right and that has to be the priority and it has to be the focus. At the end of the day we are focused on people, better outcomes for them, and how effectively by working in partnership and collaboration with other services in society we can help to transform their lives. Of course pilots are essential in determining the best practices in terms of ways of working. As the Chair has said, value for money is without doubt a key criteria and component here. I am a believer. I have no doubt that by integrating services the efficiencies will come anyway, but it is a case of those key outcomes. Yes, we will learn from the work that is taking place. We are supporting Manchester and Greater London and certainly from a local point of view it is really interesting to see how different authorities, bearing in mind they are all different around the country, come together and approach the problem. If I may, can I bring in my colleagues?

Debbie Abrahams

We are very short of time.

Priti Patel

Okay. Just for the evidence and how we capture it.

Debbie Abrahams

Can I add to that? Part of the reason for this report is to enable us to make recommendations to the Government about future contracts in the Work Programme. One of the pieces of evidence we have just heard is about mandation. As a former health professional I have concerns and I know that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has considerable concerns about the mandation of people to certain programmes. So although there seem to be very positive responses to interventions when attendance is voluntary, there are ethical dilemmas regarding the mandatory part of the programme. Could you confirm that people will not be mandated, because we know that there have been sanctions when people have been mandated to do something, and there has been a considerable rise in sanctions for the ESA work-related activity group? The number of claimants went from 713 in 2012 to 3,043 in March this year. Could you confirm those will not be included?

Priti Patel

Are you specifically speaking about the pilot—the work that is taking place in the local authorities right now—or more generally?

Debbie Abrahams

I am talking about mandation in the pilots. There was one piece of learning that has just been discussed and, as I say, the Royal College of Psychiatrists also expressed their concerns about mandation in health-related activity and the relationship with sanctions.

Chair

Where are you on that, Priti?

Priti Patel

Iain, do you want to give some context?

Iain Walsh

Just first about the mandation thing, I think there are two slightly different things. One is a specific health-related provision. What we can mandate to, or can rightly mandate to, is already limited. It is the case that referral to the Work Programme is mandatory for certain people in the ESA Work-Related Activity Group, but it does not mean that the Work Programme provider has carte blanche to mandate people to all types of health provision. That is quite limited. On the rise in the number of sanctions called for, for ESA, that did happen over two or three years. That has reached a plateau now and to be honest I think that is because there has been a build-up of the number of people for whom interventions have been provided. As well as these pilots in local areas, there are a number of mental health pilots going on at the moment. We also have some pilots for people who have longer-term review dates on ESA work-related activity and we are comparing the Work Programme provider with Jobcentre Plus and with other types of support. So there is quite a lot of learning going on there, and we will be capturing all of that as well as from the local areas.

Debbie Abrahams

Can I just clarify about the sanctions? In January this year there were 2,000 for failure to participate in a work-related activity, which this type of programme could be seen as part of, rising to 3,000 in March, so it does seem to be very variable and has not necessarily reached a plateau. If you cannot answer that now but would like to get back to me that is fine.

Iain Walsh

We can get back to you.

Chair

Priti, before I go on to Craig, you said that you had a unit in your Department and in Health looking at how resources might be more focused on individuals. Are you getting to the stage where you are saying, as I think you should be able to say, that if we are going to make a real success of the employment programmes we need to have command over so much of the health budget? I am not arguing about whether it increases or not, but instead of going through their doctor because they need something, we were hearing in our earlier session that people could access that support and help immediately.

Priti Patel

Chair, thank you for that. This is the space where we have to be. There is no doubt about that in terms of the joint working between the two Government Departments, and there is no doubt that people on ESA with conditions are the ones we will need to invest more in to get the right outcomes for them. The only way to do that is yes, by having the joint unit, which we have established, and we are working through options on how we can work together, notwithstanding the fact that we would have to cascade down to the communities, depending on the numbers who are on ESA and suffering from these conditions.

Chair

Well, Priti, what you need to do at the end of the day is to get agreement in Cabinet that Health should give you billions, whatever it is, of their budget specifically for you to use and to give services that could immediately help people back to work?

Debbie Abrahams

Or the other way around.

Chair

Rather than wait, is it not?

Priti Patel

We have to look at options. Obviously we are working with the Department of Health and that is the right way to do it, but it is a case, I think, as we have seen with some of the pilots, and with the unitary authorities as well, of joint commissioning and collaboration, understanding that these are all linked to getting the right outcomes and changing people’s life chances as well.

Chair

We have two Craigs. One Craig first and then the second Craig.

Craig Williams

A very quick one. In terms of the integration between Health and Work and Pensions, you also have the devolved areas and the other governance. How would that work? It is not just simply a cheque from the Department of Health.

Priti Patel

Quite right, exactly. A very sensible question and we have to be absolutely practical about this, because the Work Programme is a national programme. It is not something that is simply tailored and localised. The point about the work that we are undertaking right now, in London and Greater Manchester, as you have heard already, is, yes, understanding what works locally. Let us not forget as well that every community—every LEP area, for example—has different labour market needs, so it is about understanding what the condition of the labour market is, where the job opportunities are, where the skill shortages are, and how the authority can work with the LEPs, as we have been doing with other programmes. We have the ESF programme, we have an innovation fund, where we are supporting communities, and LEPs in particular, to help map out and shape and identify some of this. There is no one-size-fits-all here, and for us it is about working in partnership, setting the national framework. Taking a lot of learning and best practice, and believe you me the team here in particular, Matt and Iain and their teams, have spent a lot of time with Work Programme providers to understand just what is working, how the Work Programme can evolve, and some of the key learnings in terms of dealing with those with additional barriers.

Craig Mackinlay

There was recognition earlier on that those who have mental health problems or more obvious physical disabilities need to have more money spent on them. With the current specialist Work Choice we have the opportunity in 2017 to think about this again and try to get a better way forward, and that is part of our work, obviously. Do you think that Work Choice has been working?

Priti Patel

Interestingly enough, I spend a lot of time meeting those who are in the Work Choice space in terms of providing support out there, and of course there have been some great successes; there is no doubt about that. Of course again it is about the provision that you put out there, the engagement that you have with the individual, and importantly that sustained support. Of course, I think it has been doing what it should be doing and we have had innovation in that space. We have had some good people working in that space, but I think we have to look at this in the wider context. It is fair to say that as a Government we have outlined our employment ambitions and aspirations and of course supporting people with disabilities and health conditions is at the heart of that, so it is just a case of what more we can do in that space, and how we can continue to push for more support and join up across Government and with employers. Employers have a very important role in this space as well, and we must look at how we can support and encourage employers too.

Craig Mackinlay

I know we have an ambition to halve the disability employment gap, and as you say it seems that Work Choice works. Would it make sense, rather than people ambling their way through the start of this route into employment, going through Work Programme and then into Work Choice, for people to be assessed and signposted early, so that we get straight into a unified scheme just for them that works for them?

Priti Patel

It is interesting that you should raise this, because I think it is fair to say that we are considering all opportunities. There is no doubt about that. I think it is fair to say that if we could unify a bit more, that would make sense, but we have to work on advice and some of the guidance that we have from practitioners in this space. We need to learn from them, because we have to test and learn the approaches, but it is important to understand the tipping point, the catalyst that can bring about change for the individual. Certainly Matt and his team and others have some good experience and insight, but we are always learning. You can never stand still. It is not as if this is how it is and this is how it is going to remain. We have to keep on building on the success of it.

Matt Thurstan

In terms of work choice performance, if you look at the latest statistics, I think there is quite an impressive performance improvement in Work Choice, especially in terms of outcomes. I would say personally, if I look at the data, from my experience of the last two years of running those contracts partly what has driven that is better contract management. We heard Mat before from Manchester talking about excellent contract management. That has driven quite a significant increase, in my view, in the performance of Work Choice. At the moment you can be referred to Work Choice before the Work Programme. I think the question is when we look at the segmentation whether we need to have a bigger think about people who should go on to more specialist provision first rather than a Work Programme. They are the kinds of questions that we are looking at in terms of the future provision.

Chair

Minister, I think there is a general acceptance now that one should have a Payment by Results system. To what extent have the messages been getting back to you from providers that as it stands it is not perhaps the most effective way of galvanising support and getting the outcomes that we want? To what extent have you been thinking about, for example, service fee payments and milestone payments, not in any way to undermine the programme and the emphasis you have given it, but to recalibrate it so that it is a finer instrument to gain those outcomes?

Priti Patel

We are all about outcomes, Chair, so the Payment by Results model is the first starting point of conversations, there is no doubt about that.

Chair

Does that mean you are thinking about how you develop your ideas?

Priti Patel

We have to. I take the view, certainly from the learnings that we have seen with the Payment by Results model, that it will remain the key feature of any programme. Certainly, the providers speak very positively and constructively about the significance of that payment model. It is a case of whether to introduce service fees for providers or key milestones—the two are different. Key milestones, there is no doubt about it, have to be based on long-term sustained outcomes.

Chair

Does that mean you are thinking about that addition?

Priti Patel

We are constantly thinking about outcomes as part of a healthy conversation to have as we innovate and look forward, but also we have a good ongoing dialogue with providers and with the primes, as well as the sub-primes, because of course it varies around the country in terms of specialisms and expertise.

Matt Thurstan

If you would like me to add to that—the idea of what works in the Work Programme. The chief executives and the main primes had a round table with the Minister a few months ago, and they all said that payment by results had really changed their approach to things and driven more performance. I would agree with that. In terms of service fees, there has been some discussion in the conversations we have had especially about the hardest to help groups—not necessarily some of the JSA groups we currently see going through. I know we are talking about moving away from that potentially, but for the hardest to help groups I think a service fee is a good idea to explore. I think you have heard evidence from some of the Work Choice providers. I think you had Steve Hawkins in here from Pluss who was quite keen on that, and we have a service fee in place there. On progress measures, I think there are just a couple of points to make. First, I do not think there is any great evidence to show that these do lead to greater employment down the line. Secondly, there is nervousness about a tick-box exercise, which would concern me. Thirdly, something I am particularly keen on with Work Programme Plus, they could take some of the cost efficiencies out of the system. I think that progress measures that have to be validated and performance-managed, do add to the bureaucracy, personally. We are exploring different options. The service fee I have heard quite a bit about. I don’t hear too much from the market about the progress measures, to be honest.

Chair

Matt, if we are looking to the end of this Parliament, and you are looking back on your stewardship, we are beginning it with something like 60% are not being helped into work. Therefore we are looking at to what extent a range of measures could help to achieve a much better outcome. We know from all the evidence that we heard earlier, and you have hinted at it, that those with the greatest disabilities have considerable difficulties getting into work. What we are trying to do is encourage you to think about whether a Payment by Results system can be further developed. No one is talking about scrapping it. No one in their right mind will. But we are looking at whether the programme can be further developed to achieve greater success among that 60%.

Jeremy Quin

On that particular point, Minister, you are talking about service fees. We have heard that the Department may be considering an accelerated payment model, whereby larger payments are made if you achieve certain outcomes—certain thresholds for the hardest-to-help groups. In those circumstances, Minister, just identify for us the type of groups you will be looking at and how you would put in place the thresholds that would need to be exceeded to achieve those accelerated payments?

Iain Walsh

I think on the accelerator model there are two issues. One is the different type of payment groups you put people into, which I am sure you have had some discussion on. Then the idea would be that, probably within each payment group, you would have this accelerator model. So where you put the thresholds would come on the best evidence that we might have. If you take a certain group of people in a particular payment group, what does the evidence show about how many people you would expect to get into work with lesser levels of intervention? Then you use that as a basis to set thresholds. So if you have a very flat model then you might start accelerating quite quickly once you get around a level that indicates that this seems to be real added value beyond what you would achieve otherwise. Of course, that gives an incentive for providers to get into the hardest to help groups within the groups that you choose.

Jeremy Quin

So it is a granular system looking at each individual?

Iain Walsh

Yes, I think that is the way you would do it. Similar to Matt’s point about simplicity on other aspects, there is a balance. If you really wanted to have payment groups that were more homogenous within themselves you would start to get too many payment groups to operate. So the practical reality is that, however you decide to segment people, if it is perhaps less benefit-related and more related to barriers to work, you are still going to have groups of people for whom there will be a lot of variants in difficulty getting them to work. In that context, the accelerator model has its attractions in design terms, and then where you set the levels would have to be on the best available evidence about what we might expect with minimal intervention. So where is the real added value?

Craig Mackinlay

I do not know if your thought is similar to mine. I do worry that a huge number in some of the very difficult groups that have been through the programmes that we discussed earlier that have been trialled in Manchester with a proper Work Programme and out on to one of the pilots, don’t find work. I am not quite sure who they are, but I would imagine that people with mental health issues is going to be a large one of those groups. I worry that the providers in a commercial world are going to go for the lower hanging fruit. This is going to be obvious, and I worry whether under the pure Payment by Results scheme they will be putting in the resources to help those they pretty much know it is going to be very difficult to get an outcome for. I do not want to bureaucratise the system. I think you are absolutely right when you say that that is the last thing we need, but are there some staging posts where, okay, they have not been fortunate in getting a job at the end of it, but they have improved because of the system and their life chances have been enhanced and perhaps there should be a payment for that improvement?

Priti Patel

This is where the discussion is all at. That is where it is happening right now, there is no doubt about that. Of course, I think it is fair to say when the Work Programme was set up in the last Parliament, the Government faced huge numbers of people who were unemployed and the focus was on getting people back to work sooner rather than later. The JSA payment fell and we all know the story since then. I am a newish Minister—I have been in the Department for four months—and among providers there is a very clear and frank recognition that it is in those who are hardest to help, those who are the furthest removed from the labour market, that the investment needs to come. It is incumbent on us as Government to facilitate that and make sure that that is where the focus is. Work Programme providers are already in this space and I have been really encouraged by their high level of focus and motivation. They are innovating already in this area. They are coming to us with suggestions of what more can be done, perhaps how they could be incentivised to do more, and more generally some of the practices that they know we could expand or extend, whether it is co-location of services, learning from local service providers, greater joining up locally as well other aspects of public services. This is such a live debate right now. In all the discussions that Iain, Matt and myself have had, not with just the primes but also the subs, they are really energised by this because they know that that is where the major wins in terms of outcomes need to be. Of course we want to make sure that we can come up with the right balance, that balance being value for money for the taxpayer. We want models that work as well, in terms of the wider outcomes, but I think there is a case to be made for getting greater efficiencies as well across public services.

Jeremy Quin

Just picking up on that, Minister, if I may. It is great to hear that these people are already innovating. What more can we do to encourage them? Would an innovation fund be a useful asset, whereby we can encourage people and incentivise them to do more in that space, or do you think it will flow naturally and the incentive is already there?

Priti Patel

My own view is that I am not sure if the innovation fund route is the necessary approach, because I think of it in terms of what more Government can do. Yes, we need to create the right model, and that is what we are working to do as a Department in terms of the contractual side, but also it is about how we as Government innovate. By that, I mean that it is about how we pull other public services together—Health being the Department that we have touched on already in this discussion. We could go further. We are doing work already with the Department for Education, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as well. Skills are crucial. Yes, dealing with the health barriers is one thing, but we must invest in people’s skills and training and bring them closer to employers. It is our job to facilitate this across Government. Yes, clearly, we should work with the providers and the sub-prime providers, to look at some of the local characteristics of the local labour market and then work to develop the right kind of packages for those individuals.

Jeremy Quin

So you think the bottom line is that it should flow from the contracts that you provide? You do not think there is an extra layer of innovation and support that needs to be added on?

Priti Patel

In terms of innovation and support, we are working with the providers in terms of getting their feedback and learning from them. As I said, you cannot stand still in this space and they themselves are pulling together new ideas, which is highly important. But also they are working with the sub-primes as well—the sub-primes are almost like unsung heroes, doing some great work in our communities—and getting some real learnings from there. I do not just look at this as a magic bullet, an innovation fund; I look at this very much as a combined approach.

Jeremy Quin

Is best practice being shared? I know you said that Matt has spent a lot of time looking at best practice, but in terms of getting it across the sector from those sub-primes—we have been hearing great examples from different regions—how can we be comfortable that best practice is genuinely being shared for the public good?

Priti Patel

I will let my colleagues speak because they are in the front line on this.

Matt Thurstan

If you look to our very hardest to help groups, we have a performance management regime that puts our worst performers in an enhanced performance regime where they have more regular interventions and so on and so forth. What we do have for those groups is “sharing best practice” sessions where we come together and each of the providers will talk through what has worked well for them, which different activities they have planned in their performance improvement plans and so on and so forth. That is one way of sharing best practice. Within my team, my performance managers typically oversee a number of contracts, and we have discussions across the whole team about what is working well even with the best providers. That also gets shared with the poorer-performing providers to think about and look at. Do I think we could do more? We probably could. If you are going to ask me, one of the big wins for the next Work Programme will be the use of technology to share best practice and what works well. If someone comes up with a really good scheme for a catering course for someone, for example, they might put it on social media. People can vote for whether they think it is useful or not. If it is useful, other providers can signpost to that. It takes cost out of the market, it takes cost out for us and we best practice becomes easily accessible. There is more we can do, but I am quite encouraged to see how much of this is now going on. It is partially forced by the contract management approach, but it is happening. However, I think we could probably do more in future.

Jeremy Quin

Forgive me, you started by referring to providing examples of best practice to those who were not succeeding particularly well and I think you were moving on to saying, “How can we share best practice across the whole cohort?” That is obviously a good goal to be aiming for.

Matt Thurstan

We do share best practice when we are talking to the poorer performing contractors. We saw it before with health and wellbeing: some of the performers who are doing really well—the providers who are delivering to Manchester are the same who are delivering well on our programme—have integrated health and wellbeing coaches. That really seems to be working. I have quite a big variation on ESA performers in particular. It is very hard to say it is one thing, there are a number of factors, but one that does seem to play out in all the good performers is this integrated health and wellbeing approach. We do share that with the poorer performers, and I have seen some of the poorer performing contractors put that in place. We are sharing it across the market; I just think there is always more you can do in that space.

Jeremy Quin

Digital is the way forward?

Matt Thurstan

Yes, I think so.

Iain Walsh

We as a Department share learning with our providers, and our providers share learning between themselves. Going back to something that we heard earlier about the various health pilots and testing that we are doing through the joint unit, if we pick up something that is good we need to make that available to the whole pool of providers.

Chair

Bernard Shaw once said that if the English were promoted from the inferno to paradise, they would still gather around and talk about the good old days. There is something in our culture, I sense, always, that one does not prize success in the way that one should do. Matt, were you saying in answer to Jeremy that the combination of those who do want to spread good practice and the payment by results system brings the laggards along, wanting to know how they can get better payments by results? Are we breaking that English culture?

Matt Thurstan

That is happening but, to be fair, the providers are under a huge amount of pressure from my team on delivering performance improvements, especially on the hardest to help. I think that if we spoke to providers they would back this up—over the last two years, there has been a very different approach to contract management. We could have hit this harder from day one. On every line of provision that we launch, we are on top of it from day one now. There is also a much better working relationship with the providers, so it is more of a partnership. There is trust on both sides. If there are barriers that we have put in place that we can remove—for example, if you need some information from Jobcentre Plus and you are not getting it—let us know and we will make sure that it happens. But the flipside is that you deliver better what you have put in your contracts for your bids, and so on and so forth. There is obviously the payment by results incentive for providers to get more performance, but there is also a lot more pressure now in terms of the performance management regime. There are small things. We now have the right metrics to deliver on the contracts and we have transparent data, so every single month, we have a suite of data for every provider, every contract, and we really have some competition going. You might be in the top 10, but if someone is beating you in your package area, you need to go and explain to your parent company in the States why you are coming second or whatever. We have built this in and that is really incentivising performance, in my view.

Chair

Yes, indeed. Debbie and then Craig, please.

Debbie Abrahams

We had a visit to Craig’s constituency last week and the provider that we saw had recently merged. In fact, three of them had merged. How do you manage that within the contracts? Are there concerns that you might end up not having the same organisation and the same standards of performance that you wanted?

Matt Thurstan

Yes, sure. I think you might have visited People Plus.

Debbie Abrahams

Yes.

Matt Thurstan

Yes, who merged.

Debbie Abrahams

Which is very good, by the way.

Matt Thurstan

Yes, yes. It is good. People Plus are doing very well in our performance at the moment. It is quite a rigorous routine we go through as a Department to assess when there is a potential bid and takeover on the table. Commercial colleagues lead the process, looking at things like financial viability. We look at things like, “Is the market getting overtaken by too many large providers? Is the market share too great? What are the concerns? What if performance were to go downhill? How can we recover? What are the contingencies?” We also ask providers to submit, typically, a 90-day plan. We go through the plan. “What are you going to do to integrate? How are you going to improve performance? What do you see are the benefits of the integration and economies of the scale?” and so on and so forth. We do carefully look at that before the Department approves the takeover, and we have to approve it within the contracts because we have to novate the contracts across.

Chair

Could we quickly go back to Jeremy?

Jeremy Quin

Matt, you said that you have spreadsheets. You have the metrics.

Matt Thurstan

Yes.

Jeremy Quin

You can quickly cast your eye over them and compare and contrast, which is great to hear. I do not know if that is possible to share with us on an anonymised basis because I would love to see how that comes through.

Matt Thurstan

Yes.

Jeremy Quin

If that is possible, that would be great. Thank you very much.

Matt Thurstan

I can check. I do not know if it is commercially sensitive, but I can check.

Priti Patel

This is a fascinating area, and we will see what we can share with you because obviously some of it is commercially sensitive. When the Work Programme started, the environment in the marketplace was totally different to where we are today. Seeing consolidation, a lot of that is inevitable, people are taken over, merging some of the great work that takes place. It is the sustainability of that. Of course, our focus is on outcomes with payment by results and it is ensuring that that continues. To the credit of the Department—I have learnt a hell of a lot as well—it is down to the contract management itself and the rigour that is put in place to hold these guys to account, bearing in mind that yes, obviously it is payment by results, but it is also about sustained outcomes. It is interesting to see the change in the landscape but also now to hear from the providers about what is next in terms of ideas and some of the practices that are working, particularly with the groups that are harder to help.

Jeremy Quin

Is it the nature of the relationship that they are prepared to put their commercial interest slightly to one side in sharing with you best practice and good ideas?

Matt Thurstan

We are getting there.

Priti Patel

Yes.

Matt Thurstan

This is part of building trust, so they have trust in us and vice versa. It is not across the board, yet, I don’t think. We have an approach to market stewardship that is strategic supplier relationship management. The biggest and most critical suppliers we have in this area are also some of our critical suppliers in other areas of contracted provision for the Department. We meet with those providers once a quarter and we are building that relationship. It takes time, but I have confidence now with a number of our key providers; we do have that relationship in terms of sharing information. In terms of performance, we have a very good set of official national statistics that goes out once a quarter and if you look in there, you can see quite clearly the different levels of performance across all the providers. They have our new cohort management performance data in there, so you can see it live—real-time data for the last year, for example. I think that the next set is getting released later this week. You can get a lot out of that statistics release if you want to look further.

Craig Williams

We heard in the previous session from the local authorities from London and Manchester, and we heard, interestingly, from London that the bulk of the Work Programme is not something they could compete with. However, they saw a role for local authorities in dealing with more complex cases. I am just wondering how you were thinking about integrating and using the strengths of local government.

Priti Patel

This is the challenge, it is fair to say, because local authorities vary up and down the country and, as I said earlier on, there is certainly no one-size-fits-all in this space. It is fair to say that with local authorities we will have a working relationship; there is no doubt about that. For the national programme, obviously we set the framework. It is very much incumbent upon them demonstrating to us how they can facilitate the integration locally—because integration is the key—through the various public services. I would argue that LAs, those that really want to innovate in this space, are best placed as a public service body to facilitate and pull together—health, perhaps a degree of social services or housing—some of those key elements that of course can support those individuals that are hard to help. Just to point to a totally different scheme that is not the Work Programme, the Government’s Troubled Families scheme, through local authority work-in, has supported individuals and households with problems and helped to support very clear outcomes—not just employment but life chances. There is obviously an offering there. But that is very much for local authorities to engage with us and the dialogue that we are having to see the best ways of working that can support the key outcomes that we are looking for.

Chair

As a last question, Priti, can I take us back to discussions we had in Ramsgate when we were visiting Craig’s constituency last week? We heard in our first session that the Troubled Families programme—which I think is terrific—has a set of indicators that determines who will get help. Certainly, in Ramsgate, we were on a number of occasions faced with the question whether the indicators that decide how quickly you might gain additional help were not as effective as they could be. We similarly heard it in our earlier session this afternoon. I just wonder whether you could talk to us about the Department’s thinking on finessing those sets of indicators so that we do not have people hanging about in Jobcentre Plus who could more quickly progress to specialised help, and so that it would not be six years before they got a job but maybe six months.

Priti Patel

Sure, yes. You are quite right, Chair, about how quickly people can be supported. We have work that is taking place on how we can get support to individuals. Again, it is at a more localised level but certainly, through our Job Centres in particular, there is a greater focus—I cannot say there is a one-size-fits-all here—on those individuals to ensure that we can provide support sooner rather than later. But, again, there is more structured work taking place here.

Chair

Is it possible for us as a Committee to see those sets of indicators, not to make a great fuss about it, so we might comment on them? That would be really helpful. Thank you very much.

Priti Patel

I am sure if we can provide them, then we will.

Chair

That would be great. Yes, Iain?

Iain Walsh

Just a couple of comments here, one is specifically around the employment and health space and the whole issue there about intervening earlier, where there is a general expectation that that should be done. There is a lot of activity going on in the Joint Work and Health Unit. There is not necessarily any specific outcome to point to, but I am sure there is work in progress that can be shown. There is a specific thing around employment and health, and then there is another thing that Matt alluded to, which is the way referrals might happen in Work Programme and Work Choice at the moment. You can probably extend that out and say there is scope to think of a more systematic and organised way of having a cross-government or almost cross-public services view about characteristics and individuals, and then being very clear about the best place for them to go and at what time, based on that shared understanding. I am not saying we are there at the moment, but I certainly think, in terms of drawing up and facilitation, having that underpinning shared view about what an individual’s characteristics are and what is the best place to route them, is one important element of joined-up thinking and alignment. Again, there is nothing specific worked through I can point to there, but it is an area of thinking.

Priti Patel

The challenge for us there—because this is not something that can be fixed instantly—is segmentation of the groups; the characteristics, as Iain has pointed out. At a local level, not just through programmes but through job centres, once they have been identified, a work coach can instantly say, “This is the level of support that is needed, this is how often we need to see you, this is where you need to go,” and how that process is all joined up. That is very much work in progress and the health piece is just one example of that. We have to look at another side, which is skills and employment.

Chair

If I am working at a Jobcentre Plus, Priti, and somebody comes in who is homeless, who has drug or alcohol abuse problems and who is probably mentally ill, hanging around in the Job Centre is not going to get him a job. He probably needs help that week, if not that day.

Priti Patel

Exactly.

Chair

It is how we are moving to a set of indicators, clearly taking into account the pressures locally, that could much more quickly move people to that help. That was certainly—was it not, Craig?—the message we got from Ramsgate.

Priti Patel

That is a really good example. Quite frankly, if someone who has a housing need or is homeless comes to a job centre, the housing need should be the number one need that is dealt with—I know that this happens in some job centres—then of course that individual should be supported with all the other challenges or barriers that they may face. Of course, again, you are absolutely right, it is that support that is there and then, and access to all the other services can be co-ordinated and facilitated.

Debbie Abrahams

It harps back to my original question, which, I am sorry, was quite a long one so might not have been particularly clear. Again, in Ramsgate we were told that the work capability assessment had not worked there. They were still getting referrals for people who were terminally ill. I appreciate that we have raised this before as a Committee and if you are able to update us with any new guidance, that would be very welcome. About two and a half years ago this Committee undertook an inquiry into work programmes for hard-to-reach groups, and we recommended that the Government look at using the Australian job seekers classification instrument as a way of segmenting. If we are looking at evidence, we want to use something that has been validated. We know that it works. It needs to be adapted for its particular area. That was a tool that we could use.

Chair

To an extent, Minister, we heard from Matt some good examples about how one shares good practice in this country; what about shared internationally?

Priti Patel

Internationally, I am there. I am already there. There is no doubt about that. Interestingly enough, I met with my Australian counterpart 10 days ago and we discussed segmentation in terms of learnings and the approach that they have taken. Again, this is a reflection on how the Work Programme has evolved. Six, seven, eight years ago, the United Kingdom was looking internationally at employment programmes. Yes, we are learning from international counterparts around the world, but other countries are coming to us as well, right now, too.

Chair

Did the Minister leave with you the set of indicators they use in Australia?

Priti Patel

We are picking up with the Minister so, yes, we are having discussions.

Chair

That is good.

Debbie Abrahams

Better late than never.

Matt Thurstan

We can also learn from prime providers in the market on this approach as well. Segmentation absolutely happens—

Chair

Absolutely.

Matt Thurstan

—at the prime provider level.

Priti Patel

Completely.

Matt Thurstan

They do segment based on a whole load of indicators. The most common one people are very keen on is how long someone has been employed over the previous four years. As someone said, the length of time unemployed is a real key indicator. There is a lot we can take to look at in terms of segmentation.

Iain Walsh

I was wondering if I could go back to your first point about the work capability assessment. In the work that the Joint Work and Health Unit and others are doing, there is a recognition that at an assessment, more information is needed to capture the employment barriers and then to communicate it to whoever will be picking it up. The Committee previously has talked about sharing outcomes in the work capability assessment with providers, which is an issue that we are currently exploring. There is a broader, wider issue, which is, “What information is being captured upfront about health or other related barriers people might have?” At the moment, that is not the specific function of the work capability assessment. I just wanted to let you know that thinking is going on about, “How can we come up with an assessment that captures things that people really need to know and then share it with those people who are going to be picking that up?”

Chair

Priti, can I thank you, and Matt and Iain, for your contributions?

Priti Patel

Thank you very much.

Chair

Thank you very much.

Matt Thurstan

Thank you. Oral evidence: Welfare to work, HC 363 27