Let's have a proper debate

Ever since the publication of the dreadful performance data for the Work Programme, the media have been doing a demolition job on the whole fiasco.  I applaud that, and I'm happy to have helped, as, I'm sure, have other bloggers.  We don't mind providing information and contacts to journalists.  We don't even mind that we never get an acknowledgement of our contribution.  I also applaud the fact that the Work and Pensions Select Committee has been taking evidence.  But last Sunday's R5Live programme demonstrated one of the problems.  There may be someone representing the providers, but the presenters don't always have the knowledge to challenge a misleading or inaccurate statement.  And if no one from the government will turn up (and they never do) we are left with a bland response which is not open to interrogation.  The same happens with newspaper articles.  A "DWP spokesman" gets the last word.
It's time for a genuine debate, a confrontation between those responsible for the Work Programme and those who know what's wrong with it.  Leave out the opposition politicians.  Labour has nothing to contribute to this debate; the Work Programme is in many ways simply a continuation of their own Flexible New Deal.  Leave out the civil servants.  Let's have Iain Duncan Smith or Mark Hoban and a representative of the providers facing someone like me (yes, I'd do it, but there are plenty of other people who could) and someone who has been on the receiving end and is knowledgeable and articulate enough to engage in the discussion.  If the government or the providers won't do it, then leave two empty chairs and let the other two relate the flaws in the scheme.  Don't read out a written statement.
It won't happen, I know.  The media have got used to a particular format, and whistle-blowers make good telly, they think.  But maybe .....

Radio 5 Live Investigates - the self-employment scam

The Radio 5 Live Investigates programme has tackled the Work Programme and its predecessors several times.  Today they were looking at reports that people are being pressured into declaring themselves self-employed simply to get an outcome for the providers, and on the promise that their benefits would actually be higher.  No providers were named, but by the end of the programme it was said that 10 different providers had been accused.
Did we learn anything?  A number of WP clients, two of them on ESA, told of being pressured from very early in their WP experience that they should go self-employed, not because they had any viable business in mind but because they could get more in benefits by claiming Working Tax Credits.  They were given totally inaccurate figures, according to Sue Royston of the CAB, and were being led into a very dangerous situation where the fact that they're not working the requisite number of hours results in a clawback of thousands of pounds.  People spoke about advisers being totally clueless and only driven by the need to get people signed off.  One WP client, an unemployed project manager, faced an "adviser" who didn't know what a project manager was and admitted she couldn't help him, but the office rang a bell, literally, whenever someone signed off.
Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA (the industry's trade body) said she was surprised.  She corrected some of the misinformation - the providers only get an outcome payment after 6 months, not immediately as had been said.  But there was no excuse for bad advice, and people should complain to the provider if they felt they had been wrongly advised.  The researcher was able to point out that people are frightened to complain, and would not use their real names on this programme.  McHugh was then guilty of what I'm seriously tempted to call a lie - that WP providers are not able to sanction anybody.
Mark Hoban wasn't available, and the DWP said that there were always payment checks and a complaints process.  Stephen Timms, for Labour, had nothing useful to say.
What came out of this investigation was that the taxpayer is being ripped off in at least two ways.  WP companies are claiming outcome payments they are not entitled to; and WTC is being paid falsely.  There's also the problem that the government is putting out false figures on jobs.

One thing that wasn't mentioned but which I'm wondering about; is agency work (which has always been regarded as casual work and so doesn't attract an outcome payment) being reclassified as self-employment? I know that supply teaching agencies have forced their clients to become self-employed, so shifting the costs of National Insurance and administration of tax onto the client.  The same seems to be true of nursing agencies.  Is it happening in other areas as well?  If so, it's another serious distortion of the figures.

That interview

Okay, I wasted half an hour of my life listening to the Radio 5 Live interview [see a comment on the previous post for the link]. I agree with those who commented on it after my previous post.

Anita Anand was the right person to do the interview; Harrison has been on The Daily Politics twice so she knows what to ask. Anand was as sceptical as she could be without being downright hostile. The 19-year-old Tottenham man interviewing other young people was a good idea; most of them put the trouble down to the cuts rather than to "broken families". It was such a shame that, at the end of the piece, Harrison was allowed to interrupt and talk over the lad when he raised the point that, although she came across as having good intentions, her people didn't know how his communities lived, and again when he challenged her on "broken families" and being non-political.

Harrison insisted several times to Anand that she was "non-political". It was pointed out that she had dealt with politicians of both governments and she was asked if she had seen a difference. Yes, Brown's government was limited by what his people thought that they could do in practice. Now, she said, all ministers and advisers are going to take on a family. Who came up with the figure of 120,000 workless families? Government, she insisted, and then tried to bring it back to the personal. Anand queried why she was distancing herself from the politics of it. Again, Harrison said she was non-political and just improves people's lives around the world. How? The word "poking" was used three times. It's what happens to families when a lot of different agencies are working with them. Pushed by Anand on the how, Harrison told of the family she had spent an hour and a half with then suggested they go and help a charity down the road. This had been the start of an amazing transformation.

Anand was sceptical to the point of sarcasm, bringing it back to how exactly she, Anand, or someone like her, could get someone a job. There was a silly, but revealing, exchange in which Harrison wanted to show that there are jobs at the BBC (there aren't) and then suggested going into the shop down the road. It wasn't exactly convincing. anand turned to the money. Was harrison doing this for free. He company had made £200 million pounds. That was turnover, said Harrison, not profit, and local authorities were employing the family champions. Then we got the attempt by the young Tottenham man to question her, which she didn't allow. She said that she thought that people who had wrecked their communities should have to put it right.

Of the two text messages I heard quoted at the end of the piece (perhaps there were more at the end of the programme) one criticised Anand's negativity, the other said that Harrison was living in cloud-cuckoo land. I think this demonstrates the difficulty for TV and radio journalists. They are not allowed to go on the attack (unless they're called Andrew Neil) and so their subjects get away with it. Print journalists could do so much better, but don't bother.

The press coverage today is majoring on the fact that the scheme has been attacked as "gimmicky" and that "there appeared to be some confusion in Whitehall over the plan with employment minister Chris Grayling - who was also named among the volunteers - saying that he was not involved. 'I was rather surprised when I read this one. It was news to me that I was going to be in there,' he told Sky News." Still, Tim Loughton MP, a minister in the Department for Education, is signed up. And, gimmicky or not, it's great publicity.

PS: Anita Anand returned to the subject of family champions on The Westminster Hour, but the Tory MP wouldn't actually endorse the idea.

A genius for publicity

I missed it; Emma Harrison was on Radio 5 Live this morning. "This week, David Cameron's said he's going to fastrack the scheme to help 120,000 'broken families'. Double Take speaks to Emma Harrison who runs the project." And it's not available on iplayer. But the publicity machine rolls on. According to a papers review on BBC News 24, Harrison is proposing that government ministers each take on the mentoring of a "troubled family". I can't find the newspaper article, but the female journalist who brought it up (I didn't catch her name) described Harrison as "inspirational". She certainly has a genius for keeping her name in the public eye - and for making contacts with government. And no one says, "Hang on a minute. Why have the results been so bad on the contracts you've had?"

A4e's New Star

A4e have found a new person to be their media face - and she's good at it. Jo Blundell, their Group Development Director, was on BBC Breakfast and on Radio 5 Live this morning explaining FND as it goes live.

The TV item was brief. After a quick explanation by the presenter, she was asked what is the point of FND. It's so "no one gets left behind" and to "keep investing in them". Why do it with a private company? Because there are a "very vibrant and experienced set of providers". ("Vibrant"?) And 80% of their money will come from outcomes.

The Radio 5 Live interview was longer, but she coped well. FND is personalised, tailored to the individual. They'll be with their customers for a year, get to know them well, become like a life coach. Why not just give the money to people? Because they need motivating, have issues which are not simple, need quite a lot of help. But there are no jobs. It depends where you are. The job market in London is okay, for instance, but it isn't in Hull. It's not the ideal time to be launching the scheme. Yes it is, because FND will give everybody a chance. Who are you targetting? isn't it a scattergun approach? No, it's individualised. What's the incentive for firms? Won't they just get rid of a current employee in order to take on someone from the scheme to claim the incentive, and keep doing so? Blundell didn't really answer this question but waffled valiantly. What about people who say that wages are too low and it's not worth working? Yes it is, even though it can be a close call at first. What are the targets for A4e? Across the 5 districts where they have contracts, it's 50% into 13-weeks-minimum jobs.

I was impressed. The slogans had gone; no "improving people's lives" or being "passionate". Blundell was articulate and personable. Now we have to see whether the reality of FND in A4e's hands matches the hype.