Select Committee launches inquiry into welfare to work contracts

Reproduced verbatim from the Parliament website

The Work and Pensions Committee today announced an inquiry into “Management and administration of contracted employment programmes” The Committee welcomes submissions, in accordance with the guidelines set out below, with reference to areas such as:

  • Are there sufficient safeguards in place to prevent providers from making fraudulent claims for outcomes they have not achieved?
  • Is there sufficient protection for employees who raise concerns about their employers’ delivery of a contracted employment programme?
  • Does DWP’s contract management approach ensure the quality of service received by customers is commensurate with the level required under the contract terms?
  • Do DWP and the National Audit Office effectively monitor the accuracy of providers’ management information systems, provider performance against targets, and the evidence on which provider payments are claimed?
  • How has the centralisation of contract management in DWP impacted upon the role of Jobcentre Plus and both provider and customer experience of outsourced employment programmes?
  • Will the customer charter proposed by DWP ensure that customers, Jobcentre Plus and contractors know what they can expect of employment programmes?
  • Will contract management in the prime contractor model be transparent and effective in monitoring quality throughout the supply chain, and in maintaining a role for sub-contractors?

The Committee seeks written contributions on this issue from interested organisations and individuals. The deadline for written evidence is Thursday 1 October 2009. Oral evidence sessions will take in the autumn.

Please note

Each submission should:

  • begin with a short summary in bullet point form;
  • have numbered paragraphs; and
  • be in Word format with no use of colour/logos.

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to workpencom [at] parliament [dot] uk and marked ‘Contracted employment programmes’. If you do not have access to email, a paper copy should be sent to:

Work and Pensions Select Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London, SW1P 3JA.

It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals wishing to submit written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/...

Please also note that:

  • Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
  • Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless specifically authorised.
  • Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Record Office. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.

As per previous postings, all fraud discussions on the site are now being closed down. If you have complaints about fraud, the proper place to direct them (other than the provider or the DWP) is the Select Committee. They have the power to examine them and act on them.

Comments

I've left comments enabled on this story so that people can discuss issues such as practical questions on making submissions, NOT so that people can use the comments as a substitute for submitting information to the committee.

* Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
* Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless specifically authorised.
* Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Record Office. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.

Why is the above in place?

What right do they have to ownership of evidence submitted?
What right do they have to prohibit the publishing of evidence elsewhere by forcing submitters to keep their submissions confidential?

Perhaps more importantly, what are they trying to hide by imposing these conditions?

Are they not effectively getting people who may have genuine concerns to agree to a complete gagging order for the length of the investigation (and possibly even afterwards, as they could claim you have no right to publish the evidence as it now BELONGS to them).

What possible reasons would they have for imposing a gagging order like this, other than to ensure as much evidence as possible that should be in the public domain is kept secret for as long as possible, and to effectively stop people from publishing questions that would enable them to gather more evidence (ie you wont be able to post your current submitted evidence any where to encourage people with similar problems/stories/information to come forward with more evidence)

The above seems like a good way to ensure a enquiry is conducted unfairly and can only hinder the gathering of facts.

Ukbix, you seem to be starting from the assumption that anyone in authority has it in for you. As it happens, the conditions of this inquiry are identical to those of other Select Committee inquiries. The conditions help to ensure that the Select Committee is able to deal with sensitive topics without coming under undue pressure from lobbyists, without being bombarded by reams of irrelevant material, and with the ability to access material that submitters are unwilling or unable to make public.

Where you trip up is in the use of the word 'evidence'. In this context, it refers to the submission that has been made to the Select Committee, not to the source materials used to make that submission. Specifically, it is possible to publish one or more public reports, then create a submission that refers to them.

"Where you trip up is in the use of the word 'evidence'." (quote Daniel)....watch out Ubix - he is watching your every move and waiting for you to make....er....spelling errors.... - see how quick he removes this post....they are all out to get us....

I forgot to include this in the latest newswire, annoyingly. Well, it's here for anyone who's interested.