In light of the recommendations of the Leitch Review "Prosperity for all in the global economy: world class skills" (TSO, ISBN 9780118404792) published in December 2006, the Government produced two policy papers setting out its plans to improve the co-ordination of employment and skills training so that people who are low-skilled and out of work have a better chance of finding and keeping employment. These documents are the Green Paper "In work, better off" (Cm. 7130, ISBN 9780101713023) and a related document "World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England' (Cm. 7181, ISBN 9780101718127), both published in July 2007. The Committee's report examines these key policy statements, assessing the Department for Work and Pension's plans for future reform and how the Department will fulfil its role in improving the skills levels of people entering work, drawing on the findings of previous Committee inquiries into welfare reform issues.
This report examines contracted employment programmes and focuses in particular on the prevention of fraud, the treatment of subcontractors, and ensuring fair treatment of customers. The Committee found that levels of detected fraud in contracted employment programmes are low, but feels that there is no room for complacency; the frauds uncovered to date have highlighted the existence of weaknesses in the system which could be exploited. Processes for the detection of fraud must be rigorous and robust. In addition, the financial penalties for providers who have fraud in their organisation are not severe enough. The report calls for customer rights to be given a much higher priority, and for a universal, monitored, and enforceable customer charter to be introduced. It also calls on the Department to carry out a "Customer Survey" of customers of contracted employment programmes to enable standards of customer service to be compared between providers and with Jobcentre Plus. The quality of provision to vulnerable groups, particularly those with disabilities, is another area of concern as providers are having to work with customers with more severe barriers than they had anticipated. The Report examines several examples of potential mistreatment of sub-contractors including allegations of the operation of a cartel, and notes that while it does not know how widespread unfair treatment of subcontractors is, neither does the Department.
The Government established NEST as a low-cost pension scheme to help deliver the auto-enrolment programme and to address a market failure in the pensions industry which meant that many employers and employees were unable to access low-cost, good quality pension provision. However, the Committee believes that certain restrictions placed on NEST will create complexity for employers and will disadvantage some employees. The Committee's report recommends that, if state aid rules allow, the Government should remove the following restrictions: the cap on the annual contributions an individual can make to a NEST scheme; and the ban on individuals transferring existing pension pots into NEST. The Committee further urges the Government to proceed with its plans for State Pension reform, introducing a flat-rate State Pension and reducing the level of means-testing without delay. The report also highlights the difficulties and complexity employers and employees currently face in comparing the fees and charges applied by pension providers and recommends that, from 2013 onwards, if some auto-enrolment schemes still have hidden charges, or charges that represent poor value for money, the Government should use its powers to intervene. Auto-enrolment will impose new costs and may be particularly challenging for small employers however the Committee considers that the Government has taken appropriate steps to minimise the impact on businesses through its gradual and flexible approach ("staging and phasing") to implementation. Exempting small employers would create significant complexity, as well as excluding many employees from the benefits of workplace pension saving
This document contains a range of written evidence submitted to the joint inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, in relation to the Governments proposals to reform the law on corporate manslaughter, as set out in the draft Bill (Cm 6497, ISBN 010164972X) published in March 2005 for consultation.
The design and delivery of employment programmes are critical to the success of welfare reform and fundamental to the Government's aspiration of an 80 per cent employment rate. The new Flexible New Deal (FND) programme will be part of the revised JSA regime and will be delivered by large prime contractors who will work with subcontractors at a subregional level. Prime contractors will be given longer contracts and have greater autonomy to design individualised support for customers who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. The Committee welcomes the move towards longer contracts and endorses the principles of the FND programme, and was impressed by the work that Jobcentre Plus staff are undertaking to prepare for the introduction of the new regime. Yet there are significant concerns that fundamental flaws exist in the design of FND and the assumptions on which it is based. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) accepts that on-flows onto FND could be 300 per cent higher than first indicated, with implications for resources at the providers, and possible delays in implementing FND in some areas. The Committee urges DWP to confirm that changes will be made to the budget to reflect the massive increase in predicted onflows to FND. It might not be possible for providers to meet the targets on which contractor payments are principally based, and the Committee received evidence to suggest that the financial model for FND is flawed and its targets unrealistic. It is crucial that DWP and other departments ensure that collaborative working with City Strategies, local authorities and other local Partners is facilitated at all levels if joint commissioning is to become a reality.
The Future Jobs Fund (FJF) was established by the previous Government in April 2009 as an emergency response to the rise in youth unemployment in 2008 and 2009. Its aim was the creation of job opportunities for young people on Jobseeker's Allowance and adults on any benefit who lived in areas with particularly high rates of unemployment. The initial target was to create 150,000 temporary (six-month) posts by March 2011, to ensure no young people were left behind due to unemployment. The scheme was then extended and expanded with the aim of creating 200,000 temporary posts by March 2012. In May 2010, the Coalition Government cancelled the extension of the programme as a measure to address the public spending deficit, and announced that no new entrants would be permitted beyond March 2011. The new Government's view was that the FJF was a high-cost programme, with each job costing up to £6,500, and that similar results and job sustainability could be achieved through its new overarching welfare-to-work scheme, the Work Programme, to be launched in June 2011. The Committee states that it was too soon to assess whether the Future Jobs Fund has been successful in supporting unemployed young people in finding permanent employment. The Committee further states, that the Government needs to learn lessons from the FJF and ensure that the Work Programme includes sufficient levers and financial incentives to prevent providers ignoring young people who are more difficult to place in work. Also that apprenticeships may not be the most suitable route into employment for those young people at the highest risk of long-term unemployment and that alternative provision should be made available.
In this report the Work and Pensions Committee reiterates its call for the establishment of a Welfare Commission to create a fairer and simpler benefits system that claimants can understand and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) can administer more accurately. The report concludes that the vast majority of decisions DWP makes are accepted by claimants and lead to the right benefits being paid on time to those who are eligible. But the level of official error in the benefits system has increased substantially since 2000-01. The level of overpayments due to official error has risen from £0.4 billion (0.4 per cent of benefits paid) to £0.8 billion (0.6 per cent of benefits paid) in 2008-09. Although the Department has made great strides in reducing fraud, this increase in error should be a cause for concern. The report also highlights a worrying lack of response to scrutiny of the decision making and appeals (DMA) system by DWP. A former President of the Appeal Tribunals, Judge Robert Martin, felt his reports were effectively ignored, and there is evidence that the Decision Making Standards Committee lacks influence. There should be a much more constructive response to scrutiny. Another area that seems not to be working as effectively or as quickly as it should is the reconsideration process - the review of decisions - and the Department should examine this urgently.
House of Lords reform is a large and thorny issue on which it has proved very difficult to get political consensus. This inquiry focused on the incremental changes that could possibly be achieved outside the wider reforms that are doubtless required. Creating the power to remove Peers who have actually broken the law of the land and to remove persistent non-attendees will enjoy widespread support and would indicate that the unelected chamber was not opposed to sensible reform. Establishing a consensus about the principles that should determine the relative numerical strengths of the different party groups in the House of Lords, and for codifying such principles, is probably the most contentious of all the issues considered, but it is also the most crucial to any further progress. The Government and political parties in the Lords need to set out their positions on this matter and to engage in dialogue that will establish a consensus before the next General Election, so that both Houses can act upon an agreed reform
The Environmental Audit Committee points out that there is a large green finance gap. Investments are currently running at less than half of the £200 billion needed in energy infrastructure alone by 2020 to deliver national and international emissions reduction targets. And stock markets could be inflating a 'carbon bubble' by over-valuing companies with fossil fuel assets that will have to be left unburned in order to limit climate change. The Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee should seek advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change to help it monitor the systemic risk to financial stability associated with a carbon bubble. To address the green finance gap, the Government must provide a joined-up, stable and certain policy framework that maintains investor confidence and helps markets price in the cost of carbon. The Green Investment Bank has made a good start but does not currently have the power to borrow in order to leverage and enlarge its investments - limiting its potential to fill the green finance gap. Take up of the Green Deal has been poor and the Government must make it simpler and more attractive to households. The European Commission's (EC) proposed new rules for State Aid in the energy sector could limit the finance available to support community owned energy schemes. The Government must play a central role in agreeing ambitious and binding international commitments on climate change, both in the EU and in the run up to the UN climate talks in Paris 2015.
The Committee conducted a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Mr Deep Sagar, on 30 March 2011. (This was over a month later than expected due to the protracted selection process - the Committee remarks that the Department for Work and Pensions should ensure that timescales for selection for such posts should be realistic and deadlines met throughout.) The Committee endorses Mr Sagar's appointment, though has some concerns over his lack of direct experience in social security policy, which is a complex and technical subject area.
On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)
A report that discusses the problems experienced in the child maintenance system since the establishment of the Child Support Agency in 1993. It covers the changes in legislation; the introduction of a 'twin-track' approach with the three year Operational Improvement Plan and the establishment of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.
In light of current estimates that around seven million people are currently undersaving for retirement, the Government published a White Paper ("Personal accounts: a new way to save", Cm. 6975, ISBN 9780101697521) in December 2006, setting out proposals to reform the private pensions system and promote a new pensions saving culture. It sought to introduce a new scheme of personal accounts to provide access for people on moderate to low incomes to affordable and trusted, low-cost pension saving. All eligible employees would be automatically enrolled in either a personal account or an employer-sponsored scheme, with a new national minimum employer contribution of three per cent and tax relief equivalent to one per cent. The Committee's report welcomes the proposals for a new system of personal accounts and makes a number of recommendations designed to ensure the system is as simple as possible for employers and employees and operates effectively, including using the PAYE system to collect contributions; the level of choice of funds available and the adequacy of provision of financial advice. It also highlights the need for people to be encouraged to start saving for retirement immediately and not put it off until the scheme is established in 2012, in order to avoid the risk of creating a generation of non-savers.
For auto-enrolment to continue to work successfully, NEST must be allowed to thrive. Employers want simplicity. They want to be able to choose one pension scheme to cover all their employees. The cap on annual contributions to NEST means that employers can't opt for NEST for their higher-earners or if they want to make more generous contributions. So some employers are dismissing the NEST option and choosing a private pension provider who can offer a scheme for all their employees. NEST is required to be a low-cost scheme and to offer good value. Other pension providers don't have this same obligation. There is therefore a risk that the restrictions will mean some employees are prevented from having access to the best value pension scheme available. The Government has already made clear that it will need to "fix" the issue of transfers in and out of NEST if it wishes to implement its "pot follows member" solution to the current problem of small pension pots. Amongst recommendations made in the report is that the Government should make it a priority to gain certainty on the conditions for the European Commission's approval of state aid for NEST, to ensure that this is no longer perceived to be an obstacle to removing the restrictions. Auto-enrolment begins for medium and small employers from 2014. They will begin preparations a year to 18 months before then. Now is the time for action to be taken, it cannot wait until 2017.
The Work and Pensions Committee report that there is still a level of uncertainty around the impact of the proposed changes to Housing Benefit and their cumulative effect on households. The report examines the wide-ranging reforms to the Housing Benefit system proposed by the Government, and in particular for claimants in the private rented sector, in receipt of Local Housing Allowance. The Committee accepts the Government's desire to slow the sharp rise in Housing Benefit costs, particularly in the private rented sector, and thereby to influence the private rental market. However, it expresses some concerns about the availability of private rented accommodation in certain localities, which tenants are likely to be able to secure at the new Housing Benefit levels.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.