A4e sold?

I've had a tip-off that A4e has been sold and the staff will be informed on Monday.  Since I can't confirm that, I won't go into any more detail.  If it's true it raises some interesting questions.

Last night on Newsnight there was supposed to be a debate about "welfare" with representatives from Labour and the Conservatives.  Labour's Rachel Reeves and Stephen Timms were already on their way when they were told it had been cancelled - the Conservatives had pulled out.  It seems that Mark Harper, minister for the disabled, had withdrawn with two hours notice.  So, since we're now under election rules, the producers couldn't empty-chair him.  Instead there was a "panel" on which Fraser Nelson spouted egregious Conservative tripe and Will Hutton talked sense.  Also there was Deirdre Kelly ("White Dee"), because the media now treat her as some sort of representative of the unemployed.  It was terrible.  The Daily Politics has been holding a series of debates among party spokespeople on various areas of government, and on May 5th there's to be one on "welfare", including Iain Duncan Smith.  The editor assures me, via Twitter, that IDS won't withdraw and, no, it isn't already recorded, it goes out live.  We'll see.

Labour's new policy

Off topic for this blog, of course, but of great interest to many of our readers; Labour's announcement today of its policy on unemployment benefits.
There's a great deal of misinformation out there, some of it deliberate from the right-wing media.  For a straightforward account see Patrick Wintour's article in the Guardian.  I'll simply say what I think, and leave it to readers to agree or disagree.
Labour wants to return to the contributory principle, and I support that.  If you've been working you've accumulated entitlement to help when you're out of work.  That's how National Insurance was conceived, and it's what most people think is fair.  If for whatever reason you run out of contributions, or have never made any, you are still entitled to help, but on a means-tested basis.  That was the system for years.  It doesn't work if you increase the non-contributory benefit (known for years as Income Support level) but don't increase JSA at the same rate.  The differential erodes until there is no distinction.  To avoid that is expensive.
The policy on youth unemployment has caught the headlines.  Those who leave school without adequate skills will have to go onto training to acquire those skills, and will get a training allowance for doing so.  If they don't, they will get benefits but means-tested according to their parents' income.  There are obvious difficulties with that, and Labour has said that those who don't live with their parents will be means-tested differently.  They have not said that the training will be effectively workfare.  If that was the case, or if outsourcing companies were involved in any way, I would be dead against it.  What they seem to be talking about is courses in FE colleges and the like.  I was rather worried by Labour's Stephen Timms today saying that the threshold was "level 3", i.e. A level.  That's too high.  But I don't have a problem with the principle.  Any young person who has had a job will automatically be entitled to JSA.
Those who are outraged by the ideas underlying this policy seem to be claiming that everyone should be entitled to benefits regardless of whether they have made any contribution, including youngsters who come out of school unprepared or unwilling to get a job.  Personally I disagree.  I believe in a society based on the old Marxist maxim: to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
So wade into the argument if you want to.  But base your comments on facts.

The jobcentre experience; and pauper management

You might already have concluded that Esther McVey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Read this piece in the Liverpool Daily Post, and not only will your suspicions be confirmed, but you might wonder whether the stupidity is deliberate.  You see, sanctions (i.e. being made destitute) are in the best interests of the unemployed, much like a detention handed out by a teacher who just wants her pupils to learn their lesson.  And anyway, there's an independent review of the sanctions process going on.  Dame Anne Begg, chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, points out that the review won't look at "the appropriateness of sanctions".  The rest of the article, and the people quoted, put McVey's nonsense into perspective.
As do the figures elicited by Stephen Timms, the ineffectual Labour minister, for assaults against jobcentre staff.  They've gone up from 228 in 2009/10 to 476 in 2012/13.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's not more.  As far as I'm aware, this has only been reported in the Yorkshire Post.

There's an excellent article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site today by Jeremy Seabrook.  I have often compared the mindset of the elites today about "welfare" to that of the people who introduced the Poor Laws of 1834.  Seabrook draws the parallels with what was called "pauper management" in a serious historical examination with the activities of A4e and the like today.  None of what is going on in 2013 can be properly understood unless you grasp that it's a reversion to past attitudes.

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.

Strange figures

I'm puzzled. While the projected figures for the Work Programme are being questioned there are contradictory figures being put out for the performance of Flexible New Deal. On the one hand, there's the document put out by the DWP which we mentioned the other day,entitled "Ad hoc analysis of Flexible New Deal costs" dated January 2012. This gives a table of outcome statistics which shows 407,690 starts (excluding re-referrals) and 49,740 sustained jobs of 26-30 weeks, over 16 hours a week. That's 12.2%. Isn't it? But in response to a question from Stephen Timms MP, Chris Grayling provided, on 20 January, a table of results broken down by provider for jobs lasting 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. And the 6 month figures average to 16%. A4e averaged 15% over its 5 contracts. So which one is right?

You might say it doesn't matter much, since even the larger figure is appalling. But then let's look at a piece in the Guardian by Ian Mulheirn, director of the Social Market Foundation. He points out that for the WP the "non-intervention performance", i.e. the figure the DWP estimates will get jobs without any input at all, is 30%. Just think about that. And ask why the WP is being promoted as the solution to everything. Leave people alone and 30% will get work.

I don't normally bother any more with the daft advice given by Hayley Taylor, that most famous of A4e's alumni, but the latest question-and-answer on her site makes me cross. A 59-year-old, very experienced in admin, IT, management and as a JCP advisor has applied for lots of jobs and got some interviews, but hasn't found work. What should she do? Taylor says, " I think to remove any dates that relate to your age being worked out by a prospective employer is something I would reccomend." I know we've argued about this before, but how on earth do you keep dates out of an application form? And how do you construct a CV which gives no clue as to your age? Anyway, says Taylor, you're getting interviews so you must be doing something wrong at the interview. "Work on this area and I feel you will suceed." So it's this poor woman's fault. How helpful. It couldn't just be that they pick somebody younger, could it? I'd like to think that there was better advice being dished out by WP providers, but somehow I doubt it. By the way, there's a film on Vimeo called Hayley's Top 5 CV Tips. I can't bear to watch it.