Saturday 1 March 2014

A troubled week

Mike Penning, the Disabilities Minister, seems to be in the wrong job.  In a debate in Parliament on the mess around work capability assessments, Penning apologised.  Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to do that?  True, he was confronted with the story of Sheila Holt, the woman who was pursued by Seetec and Atos even though she was in a coma.  The sorry tale was originally told by the Mirror on 12 February.  Penning, perhaps, had no option but to apologise; but he's rather letting the side down by doing so.  His boss, Iain Duncan Smith, and his colleague Esther McVey would, I'm sure, simply have brushed the story aside.  He has probably been told that he must not see this as a precedent.  Ministers at the DWP have a motto; never apologise, never explain.
So there hasn't been a peep out of them about another horror story, this time from David Cameron's constituency.  It was covered in the Oxford Mail and headlined: "Man starved after benefits were cut".  Mark Wood, aged 44, had multiple problems which made him very vulnerable; but Atos declared him fit for work.  All his benefits were stopped except his disability allowance.  He couldn't pay his bills and apparently starved to death.  As well as being appalled, we should note a contradiction which emerges from the story.  Wood's GP "said he had not been contacted by either Atos or DWP about Mr Wood’s medical history, and revealed that if they had asked for his professional opinion he would have said Mr Wood was unfit for work."  But the obligatory arrogant comment from the DWP spokesperson says: “A decision on whether someone is well enough to work is taken following a thorough assessment and after consideration of all the supporting medical evidence from the claimant’s GP or medical specialist.”  Someone is making it up, and I don't think it's the GP.  (For the first time this mysterious spokesperson is named; it's Ann Rimell, who is Senior Press Officer at the DWP.)
As if it wasn't enough that one contract was in a shambles, a report came out from the National Audit Office showing that a newer one, the PIP assessments done by Atos and Capita, was heading the same way.  A piece in the Guardian reports that a backlog of 92,000 cases has built up, three times the expected number, and only 16% of cases have received a decision.  Neither company is anywhere near meeting its contractual requirements.  But the DWP spokesman said, in effect, "No problem".
As well as leaving it to others to deal with the Atos affair, IDS has also been ignoring the growing unrest about sanctions.  West Dunbartonshire CAB produced a scathing report which makes all the points many have been making for quite a while.  But the DWP's response was to confirm to Inside Housing that under Universal Credit housing benefit could be subject to sanctions.  This is because people who get working tax credits or HB but not JSA or ESA can only be punished by hitting that benefit.  Then on Friday the Herald newspaper in Scotland published a report of a piece of analysis done by an academic which brings up to date some of the stats on sanctions.  We knew that from October 2012 to September 2013 the success rate for appeals against sanctions was 58%.  But Dr Webster says that this has risen dramatically in the most recent quarter, to 87%.  However, only 2.44% of those who were penalised actually appealed in the last 3 months.  IDS would claim, of course, that this means that the vast majority of sanctions are justified; but Dr Webster maintains that the low appeal rate is down to the difficulty so many claimants have with the appeal process.  And he makes an interesting point: "To date, Work Programme contractors have been responsible for twice as many sanctions on the people referred to them as they have produced 'job outcomes' ."
Duncan Smith had a project which he's been forced to drop by his own colleagues.  He wanted to redefine poverty.  At the moment poverty is defined as having an income less than 60% of the country's average income.  So it's relative, but it's based firmly on the idea that poverty is about not having enough money.  IDS wanted to include other factors, like "worklessness" and addiction.  This was a terrible idea, for several reasons, admirably expressed by Bernadette Meaden on the Ekklesia website and by Andreas Whittam Smith of the Independent.  
Duncan Smith's recent appearance before the Work & Pensions Select Committee astonished many people, because his attitude was so disgraceful.  One of the Labour members of that committee, Teresa Pearce, has described her feelings about it on the International Business Times website.  She calls him "downright rude and quite abusive".
And finally - I've lost the link to this, but it's memorable.  In the debate on the bedroom tax Labour brought up the evidence to show that IDS's estimate of the numbers wrongly penalised was a wild stab in the dark and completely inaccurate.  Now Smith doesn't like to be contradicted.  But I detect something else in what happened next; panic at the very idea of maths.  Having accused Chris Bryant of mathematical incompetence he said that one in twenty of something-or-other .... "One in twenty - that's a fifth ..."  Er, no.  (If your maths is as bad as his, one in twenty is 5%.  A fifth is 20%.)

27 comments:

  1. I’m shocked. I already knew about all the individual problems that Historian has mentioned in this new blog but I had not tried to “pull it all together” in my own mind before now.

    IDS is a dreadful liability, plainly. I didn’t take much notice during his short spell as the Tory leader because he seemed to be so hopeless at that job too. I think that William Hague has now blossomed, matured and he has become one of the few genuine statesmen in the Tory party imho, whereas IDS is nothing but a very noisy disaster. The Chingford Skinhead (Tebbitt) bet on the wrong horse, I reckon.

    IDS is wasting his time (plus he and Osborne displayed only their own ignorance) by trying to redefine “poverty”. The idea that every country has it own “poverty threshold” has long been accepted by international agreement, which agreement has to refer to income only because there is no other, properly objective, properly comparable way for the UN and governments to measure the problem:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

    I share IDS’ incompetence at basic maths, so thanks for doing that bit for me too, Historian!

    Mike Penning is good, imho. Originally, he was a firefighter in Essex before he became an MP in 2005.

    In 2010, Penning stopped the daft idea of trying to amalgamate so many different fire brigades. Then Penning became the Shipping Minister, in which role he annoyed the hell out of every Coastguard and the shipping industry generally with his own (Penning’s) total ignorance of all matters maritime. Having made a complete mess with Shipping, Penning then vanished to the Northern Ireland portfolio but he has now reappeared as the Disabilities Minister at which, so far, he has proven to be pragmatic, first-rate, mature and sensitive, unlike his moronic predecessor Esther McVague and their equally moronic boss IDS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Sheila Holt article in the Mirror is shocking. But not too surprising. At first glance it would appear that Ms Holt received a letter from SEETEC whilst in a coma (not that even this would surprise me anymore regarding the W2W sector). However, SEETEC apparently sent Ms Holt letters which helped induce her condition. Made worse by the fact that Ms Holt is diagnosed as severely bipolar! Should she even be on the WP in the first place???

    A couple of things spring to mind over this. Firstly, the desire to lump everyone together under a one size fits all policy. Famous under New / Flex New Deal where people of various ages, abilities and education were all herded together in the same overcrowded room. Not only did this not help people back into employment, it was no good for ones mental wellbeing. I remember when at A4e on ND there were a couple of people who had alcohol issues. Nice blokes, but surely the wrong environment for them and others.

    Secondly, when I had to go to Ingeus more recently I dreaded going there. I felt almost nauseous every time I went. Now overall the advisers at Ingeus were nowhere near as bad as they were at A4e. A couple were actually fine with me. However, this still did not alleviate the awful feeling I got every time I approached the Ingues offices. More to do with the utter futility of it all really.

    So someone with anxiety issues, severe confidence problems, and indeed diagnosed bipolar could be pushed 'over the edge' having to deal with an unfit for purpose W2W provider and a verbally abusive adviser. Especially as far too many advisers are poorly trained and have poor people skills. Just how many advisers have any training or background in drug / alcohol dependency and mental health issues for example?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With me going to A4E I wanted to jump in front of a bus to avoid going, and that is no lie, I didnt want to go to such a place felt under threat all the time.. I did get a good adviser eventually, he KNEW what it was like. but the whole feeling of going there destroyed what confidence i had managed to get, then after going to the post work programme support interview it made me seriously consider killing myself as i felt blamed by them, that i wasnt good enough. I broke down in the interview and in the doctors, luckily i asked for help, but even now everytime i have to speak to the job centre/dwp i feel panic and i feel bad and wonder why should i bother when its likely i will be blamed and treated like scum..

      Delete
  3. Last year, while I was still on the Work Programme, I spoke with someone during a Jobsearch session who told me that a few weeks previously he he’d been issued with an appointment to see one of the Provider’s consultants. He’d turned up on the right day, and in good time, to be told that the appointment had been cancelled because the consultant had phoned in sick that day. A member of staff rescheduled the appointment and told him he could leave. The Work Programme Provider then referred him for a sanction for not attending the appointment. Luckily, he’d signed the register at the reception desk when he’d arrived, so he could prove that he had actually attended, and a sanction wasn’t imposed. But why was it that no member of staff could remember that he’d turned up? Why didn’t they check the register themselves? Is it possible that they simply expected him to accept the sanction, and not challenge it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's also a question of why the original appointment wasn't deleted from the system. This is what seems to happen regularly. Either the IT is deeply flawed or the admin is woeful.

      Delete
    2. The admin is woeful! Experiences like those described by JBS are common place - for instance I received notification of a "sanction doubt" on two occasions - one pretty much identical to the circumstances described above and the other when I had both written and phoned to inform A4e that I would not be able to attend due to a clashing appointment at the Job Centre.
      In the end neither doubt resulted in a sanction but they should really not have been raised in the first place, totally unnecessary angst and work caused by poor attitude and admin on A4e's part.

      Delete
    3. I'm not really sure where I stand with the Work Programme anymore... I was put on the programme in February 2012, and my last appointment with them was in late January this year for the usual "job search", which I always found pointless considering all my searching activity is now seen by the Job Centre on Universal Jobmatch.

      Anyway, since that appointment I've heard nothing from the WP. My advisor at the Job Centre never discusses what's going on with them, he just asks how the job search is going (obviously not good otherwise I wouldn't be seeing him!) and makes my next appointment... Is this how it usually ends with the WP?

      Delete
    4. Hi Anonymous,
      It sounds like you have slipped through the "Post Work Programme Support". This "support" is the hastily devised "hit squad" approach and seems to consist of either: 1 More regular signing (even daily). 2. Mandatory Work Activity or 3 Mandatory attendance at even more useless "training".
      If the JCP are treating you as though you are still on the WP (i.e. minimum interference) then I suggest that you keep your head down. This idyll will end soon enough.

      Delete
    5. If you started in Feb 2012 you've now left. - Congratulations!

      If you meant Feb 2013, then having zero contact for the 2nd year is quite normal. With a bit of luck the next letter they send you will be in about 10 months time, and will just say, "Your time on the WP has now finished".

      Delete
    6. Anon 2 March 2014 18:20, Yep! That's how it sort of was for me. After seeing a business adviser from a 3rd party organisation, I saw a WP adviser a few times then zip. Nothing for weeks, turning into months.

      Then towards the end of my 2 years I receive a letter asking me to attend an appointment. I later get a phone call telling me said appointment is cancelled. When I naturally do not turn up, I receive yet another phone call asking me why I failed to attend!

      The admin and IT systems within these WP providers is truly shocking. Thus I have been seen by a WP adviser for a final appointment. Nor have I had an exit report, despite requesting one twice from the WP provider. The only WP finalisation appointment was with JCP.

      Delete
  4. The help I have received post-WP has been terrible. A pointless 'work skills' course. A pointless 'careers' interview. Very little JCP support. The whole 'Back To Work' support system is ineffective. Probably deliberately. Simply, I have been 'parked' until Workfare kicks in!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is useless.

      I was taken off A4E december last year. I also in that time got a 0 hour contract, however that means I'm still beholden to the Jobcentre for the times I don't have hours.

      So far they stuck me on a 2 week CV / interview technique course (which was pretty useless) and they're trying to stick me on another course about how to do CVs in the next couple of weeks.

      They don't put you on relevant courses, or courses they think you may need. There's on course I'd love to go on but the cost is out of my price range and the JC won't allow it, but it'd make my employability skyrocket immensely. The reasons? 'I wouldn't be available to find work' . Given it's vocational you get a work placement apprenticeship through it... So you would be 'employed' technically for the duration.

      Delete
    2. Same here,but at least they are now stating that there actually is no help available,a few veiled threats that in April "Big changes" will happen,I recently asked for Bus fare to attend an interview(UJM) and it was denied as a "Rubbish Job" granted they had over 3000 positions available for 1 company and it was apparent that this was true,but it is on their system and counts toward the job count. I have been summoned to attend a Compliance meeting, with regard to my JSA claim,I am required to bring in a passport,mine is out of date,utility bills(I am sofa surfing) and the last 3 months bank statements,I only have Oct-Dec ,my next statement is not due out until April,failure to provide these will result in a suspension of benefit(not a sanction) any ideas?

      Delete
    3. I went to the meeting today,all my ducks in a row...The interview(Compliance) went well,it was first stated that as I only claim JSA that there really was no point (how much fraud can you commit on £71.70 PW) it got interesting after a few minutes,the adviser had 37 years in the DWP/Social and was amazed at how it has declined,he stated "As a 50 yo you have very little chance of employment" I asked why? "Between the programmes that are available and your age you are out of the running" Can you clarify that? "Most of the fall in unemployment is due to shifting people from one programme to another,mostly under 25s," Stunned? Yes,but a bit of a boost in my self esteem.

      Delete
  5. Recently heard from a young lady that she had attended a mandatory induction session at a WP provider. For her efforts, she received a "good reason" letter from the DWP as the provider had raised a benefit doubt - The reason ?
    She had failed to bring a photo ID with her - The original appointment letter made no mention of this requirement !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Iain doesn't just struggle with maths, his CV-writing skills aren't up to much either. Quick A4e course should sort that out...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't know if anyone else is a lone parent here, fairly new to the blog and wish I'd found this and others earlier. Currently with A4e WP, was signed up just before Christmas, so far been to two training sessions (4hours of my life that I'll not get back plus an additional 4 hours travel altogether) both were a waste of time, didn't learn anything I don't already know and what I didn't know isn't useful in getting a job for me. My advisor though seems nice isn't really listening to what I say about my circumstances (the fact I have a hearing problem which means I cannot work with the general public i.e say cashier or waitress, you get the picture, and I don't drive, so getting to work means using buses which for some jobs don't start early enough) so alas I am on renter hooks about being sanctioned for not applying for the amount of jobs he says I have to apply for (its 8, though he made out he would drop it to 5 but on checking paper work he forgot to change it so its still 8) I'm lucky if I find 1 job a week I can apply for nevermind 8, so how am I supposed to fulfil what they want me to do when there are no jobs suitable. I'm going to ask to see my Jcp advisor next week to see if they can help as A4e aren't or won't. I was also wondering if anyone can tell me if they can refuse to let you go on a course for say food hygiene qualification? As I'm thinking of looking into those kind of courses as they aren't evening mentioning any type of 'useful' training. Any advice would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If necessary, apply for jobs you know you won't get. If you got an interview it would be apparent that you are not suitable. This would be soul-destroying, but not as bad as being sanctioned. Employers are used to this. And keep asking about the Basic Food Hygiene course. It's cheap enough for them to agree.

      Delete
    2. Yes, apply for things you know you won't get, as long it's not too obvious you wouldn't get them. I had the same problem - can't drive and underlying health problems, the only advantage was they had to let me go early to get the bus home to make sure my daughter could get into the house when she came home from school. And if you get interviews for jobs you can't do, don't feel bad about it - at least it shows they think you're the right person, so when there are jobs you can apply for you've got a good chance there too. I've had this happen and also it's good interview practice, much better than what A4E or the JCP can give you because it's real, even if you know you can't do the job.

      Delete
    3. It's exactly what you should do, and also exactly the sort of thing that discredits the Work Programme and JCP with employers. It's no wonder that many wouldn't touch them with a barge pole

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 3 March 2014 07:42 and other NEW posters here should realize that their experience of shocking, frustrating and demoralizing experience with the WP has been endured by the vast majority of its 'customers' over the last few years. The WP was/is part of the current governments program of outsourcing, much like ATOS' WCAs and the Probationary Service reforms currently underway.
      The WP was started in Jun 2011 and has been closely monitored and reported on here (by Historian) by looking and commenting on the experiences of all those whom have had to suffer the WP, UJM and postWP (including now Workfare).
      These are definitely NOT for the benefit of the clients or 'customers'- be in no illusion that you will gain in any way from these programs - despite what well-intention advisers may tell you to the contrary.
      This is my advice to those whom are unsure in how to work with the system as it presently is ( ps i've been there I know what i'm talking about)-
      First: work out a plan for yourself- what you would like to do and research it yourself. Second: apply for twice the number of jobs you are mandated to do- any old rubbish will do - self-employed whatever from UJM. Third: if they say any appointment is cancelled turn-up unless it is in writing- if errors are made by them complain right there and then.
      Fourth appear to be cooperative but insist everything is done 'by the book' and make a note of whom you spoke to when and about what, keep a detailed record of all meetings and exactly what you did to find work. Lastly apply for reconsideration then definitely appeal ANY sanction you get- and you will get sanctioned - every one does. One day you will walk away from the WP and tell the world your experience- to others whom often believe what they read in the press - Benefits St, skivers, worklesness- this is all government propaganda often regurgitated in the right-wing media.
      Remember what you have been through when they come knocking on your door the next general election asking for your vote.
      On a positive note if you do achieve gainful employment and no longer need their services- certainly don't tell them anything other than you are no longer claiming and actively block any moves by your WP to get your new employers details- they are likely to upset them and you could end up back on the dole- god forbid you would want that again!
      Tom

      Delete
    5. A quick word of caution. Be careful about applying for jobs that you don't want or can't do (e.g. some of the self-employment 'opportunities' which are little more than scams) but might be offered. That way lies a 3 month sanction...

      Delete
    6. Also when I was attending the WP, an adviser actually said the types of jobs I was looking at were to vague and not specific enough!!! Go figure!!! Many WP and JCP advisers are prone to make things up on the hoof.

      Delete
    7. Badger and iMatt my response is if the job is on UJM (scam or not) and you apply (a job within your skills and experience list) then its a valid application.
      After all they (JCP) are telling you that's it a vetted post - I admit that most times it's not- but at least you have tried!
      Tom

      Delete
    8. Tom - the point is that if one is offered a job, even if it's one of the scam self-employment ones (who as we've seen from previous comments on here are inclined to offer a 'job' to practically anyone who comes to their attention), and the offer is declined, it puts the claimant in a very unsafe position.

      Nothing to do with vetted vacancies, and in fact, that DWP claim that vacancies / employers are vetted probably makes it more rather than less likely that one will be sanctioned in the event of turning one down.

      In the somewhat upside down world of conditionality, applying and succeeding may - in some circumstances - be far worse than applying unsuccessfully.

      Delete
    9. "In the somewhat upside down world of conditionality, applying and succeeding may - in some circumstances - be far worse than applying unsuccessfully"
      Franz Kafka would recognise this world.
      from Wikipedia:
      Kafka's writing has inspired the term "Kafkaesque", used to describe concepts and situations reminiscent of his work, particularly Der Process and "Die Verwandlung". Examples include instances in which bureaucracies overpower people, often in a surreal, nightmarish milieu which evokes feelings of senselessness, disorientation, and helplessness. Characters in a Kafkaesque setting often lack a clear course of action to escape the situation.

      Delete
  8. I went through a six month sanction due to the work programme staff being unfit to function. I put a timeline (with evidence) of my two years at Ingeus here (Daily Mirror's facebook page). https://www.facebook.com/dailymirror/posts/10152241563449162
    Below in the comments you will see letters, screengrabs etc to back up what I claim.
    Les, London.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".