Clause 34
2:15 pm
Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)
I shall try to move through the amendments reasonably quickly, because we have discussed pilot schemes at the evidence sessions and in an earlier debate today. The clause provides for such schemes, making it clear that, under the previous clauses, Ministers can make regulations for a pilot scheme and time-limit it for a period not exceeding 36 months. These are probing amendments, and amendment 30 tests how the schemes will run and what we may learn from them.
Subsection (4)(c) defines whom the scheme applies to, and it can apply either to a geographical area or to a specific class of individuals. The provision that I seek to delete states that the scheme can be applied even more narrowly—to particular people by reference to prescribed criteria or on a sampling basis. One danger with pilot schemes is that if they are chosen to run in an area that is particularly hospitable to them, where all the local authorities, primary care trusts and other statutory bodies are gung-ho about making it work, it may be successful but that will not give us a realistic view of what will happen if we introduce it throughout the country, where those factors may not all hold true.
Furthermore, if we narrow too much the group to which the pilot applies, we may not fully see what will happen in the real world. For example, if it applies to a small number of people, other services, such as brokerage and advice services, are unlikely to arise, because there will be too few people to access them. Another problem is that if the local authority has a small number of people to whom the new provisions apply, but it still has to provide all its other services, it will incur the costs of parallel running.
What areas are the Government looking at for the schemes? Will they be only in areas where the local authority and other statutory providers are volunteers? That would be helpful, but it would not give us a very good impression of what might happen if we introduced the scheme throughout the country. The Minister alluded to the specified class as a person, and, to see what works, we must ensure that different categories of people are given the chance to use the services. For example, we want to ensure that the schemes cover a significant number of people with mental health problems and learning and other disabilities, so that, across the range of disabilities, we get a fair picture of what works, what does not and what might need to change.
Amendment 31 would leave out an objectionable aspect of the clause—subsection (6). The Minister knows from the evidence-taking sessions that I have some impatience with pilot schemes—perhaps it is just from being in opposition, and it will be knocked out of me in due course. I object to the fact that once a pilot scheme has been running for up to 36 months, it can be replaced by a further pilot scheme making the same or similar provision. I have a vision of perpetual pilot schemes—without our ever coming to a decision. If we are going to run a scheme, we should run it and then, at the end, or earlier if we have some clear data, make a decision. We should decide either that something does not work or is not practical and therefore stop doing it, or that we have enough evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to move forward—we should not have another pilot scheme.
The thing that pilot schemes miss, which we kicked around a little in the evidence sessions, is balance. It is right to make sure that, when we roll out a new system of anything, it is well designed and will work. Equally, we might have evidence, which we do from the pilots on social care, that that way of designing things has good outcomes for most people—it can deliver better outcomes at lower cost. There is a cost involved in running lots of pilots and not rolling the system out across the country for three or four years. The cost is for the hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people who would be entitled to the new way of doing things, possibly giving them better outcomes at lower cost to the taxpayer, but they are prevented from doing so, because instead of rolling it out across the country we are running a number of pilot schemes.
While recognising that we need to get things right, we should also recognise that we have already piloted individual budgets between 2005 and 2007 on the adult social care side. Those pilots have been evaluated and the Department has the evidence. Certainly for working age adults, the evidence was clear. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, said earlier, there were some concerns and some issues raised with older people—in some cases the pilots were not entirely successful. However, there is a fair bit of evidence already that the stuff works, and that came through in our evidence session, both from Liz Sayce and Paul Davies.
The new pilots in the Bill will only commence in 2010 so, if they run for the full three years, we are looking at the system not even starting to be rolled out across the country in 2013. In the four years between now and then there will be many people who could have benefited who will be prevented from doing so. We need to have that at the back of our mind as we press to go further and faster. I know Ministers want to do that, but unless we push a little harder, we are in danger of never quite getting to where we want to be.
If we look at some of the other organisations involved, there is clear pressure from outside about making this go faster. Sue Bott, the director of the National Council for Independent Living, has said that the pilots would cause “unnecessary delay,” given the Department of Health’s piloting of individual budgets between 2005 and 2007. She said in a brief:
“I feel that if there’s an acceptance of the principle, then let’s get on with it and make it”
work.
“There’s enough information on the ground.”
Anne McDonald, programme director for community well-being at the Local Government Association, involved in the delivery of such services on the ground, said that there was a danger that people could feel “piloted out” and that the new pilots needed to be clear in what they set out to achieve.
When the Minister responds, she could set out—perhaps not in detail now—what the objectives of the pilots are, so that we could know when they have been successful. It would be helpful if the pilots in the clause could only run for up to 36 months—it would be interesting if the Minister could give us an indication of how long the Government expect pilots to run for, and an assurance that if, as those pilots are running, there is evidence early on about what works, there would be no necessity to run the pilot right to the end. Ministers should reserve the right to say, “We know what works, we know what is successful, so we are going to get on with it and do the job.”
The final authority that I would pray in aid would be the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which I mentioned in my remarks this morning. It stated that
“it is disappointing that the Bill”—
or the talk around it—
“only proposes that this will be piloted in 2010 in a small number of ‘trailblazing’ public authority areas.”
The EHRC clearly wants the process to go faster as well. I am sure that Ministers are keen for it to do so, but the key is getting the balance between caution and making it happen on the ground.
That is the essence of my amendments. In conclusion, I again quote Mr. Davies, when giving us evidence:
“I can well understand why people would want to feel the comfort of a pilot and see how that worked; I just do not agree with it. There is more than sufficient evidence to justify going straight ahead.”——[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009; c. 19, Q20.]
That is a man who has delivered such things on the ground. He is not a visionary in a think-tank, who does not have to make things work. He is the director of adult social care at an authority with a fifth of the national coverage of people with individual budgets, making this stuff work on the ground and delivering those services. He is clear that there is enough evidence to move ahead. Perhaps the Government could be a little more ambitious about the timetable.