The Reforms

There's no getting away from it today, but some of the interviewers are beginning to ask the right questions. At this moment Steve Webb is waffling in reply to what happens when someone with a family has their benefits stopped. One thing that's emerging that should frighten people; there'll be no appeal if you are sanctioned. That's what IDS said, although Webb has just denied it. It seems to be the case that you could be forced to sign up to casual work with an agency, or be deemed to have refused a job. No one has asked whether that gives the power to the likes of A4e to decide that you've turned down a job. Right now the BBC is talking to people in Easterhouse who fit the stereotype, as if that's all there is to unemployment. In all the chatter and propaganda, no one is addressing the issue of the lack of jobs.

Press Release on Poverty

The DWP has put out a press release called "Government response to Households Below Average Income figures". Before looking at what it says it's worth noting that Steve Webb, the Lib Dem MP, is pensions minister and so may have little input into the Work Programme. It's Iain Duncan Smith who is quoted at length. Some stats are given at the start.

• In 2008/09 5.8 million working age adults living in relative poverty Before Housing Costs (BHC) and 7.8 million After Housing Costs (AHC). Compared to 2007/08 this represents a rise of 0.2m (BHC) and 0.3m (AHC).
• The number of people in working-age poverty is the highest since records began.

So what is the solution?

"Vast sums of money have been poured into the benefits system over the last decade in an attempt to address poverty, but today’s statistics clearly show that this approach has failed. Little progress has been made in tackling child poverty, society is more unequal than 50 years ago and there are more working age people living in poverty than ever before. A new approach is needed which addresses the drivers behind poverty and actually improves the outcomes of the millions of adults and children trapped in poverty. It is right that we invest in addressing poverty, but we must focus our resources where they will be most effective. Work, for the vast majority of people, is the best route out of poverty. Yet the current welfare system is trapping in dependency the very people it is designed to help. The rise in working age poverty and continued inequality show that we must make work pay and the first choice for millions of people. It is not right that someone can actually be worse off by taking work, we should be rewarding such positive behaviour by making work pay. Likewise, we must demand a return on our investment in work programmes. It is crucial that we fully support people making the transition into work, but tax payers’ money should be spent on initiatives that work and make a difference to people’s lives. The time for piecemeal reform has ended. There has never been a more pressing need for fundamental radical reform and we will waste no time in acting."

There is little that one could disagree with there. But what it will mean in practice is not yet clear. What are "initiatives that work"? Dare we suppose that IDS has twigged that current provision doesn't work? What role have the private companies played already in shaping the "fundamental radical reform"?

Another response to the Guardian interview

Civil servants at the DWP have notified the bodies which have applied for funding for the Future Jobs Fund that the whole process has been frozen pending decisions to be made by the new ministerial team. This may well be the beginning of the overhaul of the system; but the FJF is generally administered by local authorities working with employers, and it would be a pity if councils were cut out of the Work Programme. They are, at least, locally elected and accountable.

While we wait for the new team at the DWP (which includes Steve Webb, a Lib Dem MP who is regarded as on the left of the party) to come up with the new system, people have been debating the likely intentions of Iain Duncan Smith. He is known to favour increasing the financial incentives to work and simplifying the benefits system.

Meanwhile, remember the sycophantic Guardian interview with Emma Harrison which we reported? They followed it with a comment piece by an experienced worker in the sector; and now the paper has published a response by Karen Ings, an unemployed woman who was made redundant after 12 years working in publishing. She criticises the attitude of Jobcentre Plus; but is most scathing about A4e. "Dealing with A4e made me feel like Alice in Wonderland. Their glossy full-colour brochure promises positive thinking and cool break-out spaces; in reality, it is a chaotic, greyish office in Archway where no one seems to have a clue what's going on." She describes her experience: "My A4e coaches seemed nice enough. But the basic equation went like this: I would recount to them my efforts to find a job, and when I found a job, A4e would be financially rewarded for achieving a positive outcome (the agency is paid partly on results). Beyond recommending their own special website, they provided no practical assistance or training. I was offered vouchers towards new clothing for interviews (and was once told: "You are definitely going to get this job, no question, I know it, I can feel it – high five! And when you get the job, we will send you for a Gucci makeover!") but on further investigation it turned out that I was not eligible for this genuinely useful help, as I was in stage four. It was unclear to me what A4e was being paid for."

It is probably a vain hope, but perhaps the new DWP regime will take account of the experience of clients like Ings.

Today Programme discussion

I've just listened to a short discussion on the BBC Today programme focussing on welfare-to-work. It was mainly about those on IB, with the usual vagueness about the distinction between those being shunted off IB onto JSA, and those who are simply out of work. We didn't learn anything. Jim Knight gave figures for back-to-work success which nobody could or would challenge. Theresa May for the Tories pressed their line that claimants would start "individualised programmes" immediately with private providers, with the focus on "sustainable" jobs, i.e. lasting at least a year. Steve Webb for the Lib Dems was asked whether they would use private companies and, disappointingly, dodged the question, saying they wanted to harness bright ideas from everywhere; but he did say that they want to make the benefits system more flexible so that people can work less than full-time without losing their benefits, rather than the current, all-or-nothing approach. Jim Knight for Labour talked about a "better off in work guarantee", meaning people would be at least £40 per week better off when working. He also stressed the Future Jobs Fund and various other measures, which May scorned, re-stating her previous point about immediate help into sustainable work. Steve Webb made a good point about not blaming the victims.

From the point of view of the providers there's little to worry about, it seems, unless the Tories get in and stick with their determination to pay them only on sustainable outcomes.

"Firms in fraud probe set for Whitehall cash"

That's the headline in the Observer today. "Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman, said the government should review which companies were allowed to bid for contracts working with some of the most vulnerable people in society. "The taxpayer is over a barrel to a small number of companies cashing in on the recession. It beggars belief that companies subject to investigation should be potentially in line for lucrative contracts dealing with a particularly vulnerable group," he said." It's the Work Choice contracts which have sparked the anger of Mr Webb, and the story explains why. Good to know that MPs are waking up to this situation, and that the Observer is not going to let go. The Sunday Times, however, carries a piece, "Queen of the jobless industry", which could make you despair of so-called quality journalism. I can't bring myself to summarise it - read it for yourself.