The focus is on sickness and disability benefits today, as Channel 4 and the BBC both screen programmes on the assessment system (Channel 4 at 8.00 and Panorama on BBC at 8.30). Panorama has questioned the "government appointed adviser on testing welfare claimants", Prof Malcolm Harrington. According to a preview in the Telegraph, the professor admits that there are flaws in the system. The programme highlights a particular case, a man who suffered from heart failure and "died 39 days after being declared fit for work". However, the familiar loathing of anyone on benefits is on show in a particularly nasty way in the Express this morning. "New war on sick benefits" it shrieks. The language in this article would make a fine case study in right-wing propaganda. Note the verbs. Taxpayers "shelled out"; families are "mired" in dependency; claimants are "raking in" money. And the statistics are absurd. But they have a quote from the disgusting Taxpayers' Alliance, so that must validate it.
No doubt they would approve of the plan which is about to be rolled out across the country, according to the Guardian; to make people who have been unemployed for 3 years do "community work" for 6 months. The paper has the views of the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, which says that it could result in 1.06 million people being forced onto the scheme because the Work Programme will not work. The article also says that the decision in the Jamie Wilson case is expected before 10 August. He's the chap who took the DWP to court along with Cait Reilly.
The Guardian also has revelations about how donors to the Tory party are making millions from welfare companies. A firm called Sovereign Capital owns ESG which has £73m worth of government contracts, including for the WP in the Midlands. The article details all the donations and connections. There's a rather half-hearted quote from Labour's Liam Byrne. He's in a difficult position, of course. David Blunkett and A4e?
Monday, 30 July 2012
Sunday, 29 July 2012
More lies, and questions
It's hard to know whether Chris Grayling is deliberately making it up or just doesn't understand. An article in the Telegraph yesterday showed the depths to which ministers, in collaboration with a Tory press, can sink when it comes to welfare reform. The headline is "Half of recipients of sickness benefit return to work if ruled fit". But the first sentence says that more than half "go off benefits". Hardly the same thing. The appalling quality of the journalism in this piece is shown by the sentence, "More than 2 billion people who previously claimed Incapacity Benefit are gradually being assessed ....." Okay, maybe that's a typo on the website. But don't they have proof-readers?
What the report in question actually claims to show is that 52% of those assessed as able to work don't claim another benefit straight away. 10% went back to their old jobs; 18% found new work or worked for themselves. "Others retired or were supported by their families." Which is not quite the same as the headline, is it? The comments under the article are well worth reading for the intelligent analysis of this rubbish. But it's the lies and the spin which last. Half of those on IB should be working.
And another piece has popped up on the Telegraph's website. Apparently Grayling has been "forced to tighten the rules ..... to get more people off benefits and back into work". He says that he will "redesign the scheme so that those deemed originally too ill to join it would be made to do so". It's because WP providers are "crying out" for more hard-to-help claimants, and yet only 40,000 people on ESA have been pushed onto the programme. Well, of course WP profits depend on these "hard to help" people. Incredible.
One of the least reported contracts which pays A4e and the like is the Jobcentre Plus Support contract (JCPSC). Helpfully, A4e has published a piece on their website to supposedly explain what they do, in the 33 London boroughs where they are the prime contractors. But the only description is "provides employment training for people who have signed on at Jobcentre Plus and need further support in terms of improving their job searches and getting ready for working". All right, we understand what that means. But this is work which should, and could, be done by the Jobcentres. Contracting it out was a purely ideological move, handing work for profit to the private sector. While there's no talk at the moment of privatising the Jobcentres altogether, I wonder whether this would have been done by now if the climate had been different.
What the report in question actually claims to show is that 52% of those assessed as able to work don't claim another benefit straight away. 10% went back to their old jobs; 18% found new work or worked for themselves. "Others retired or were supported by their families." Which is not quite the same as the headline, is it? The comments under the article are well worth reading for the intelligent analysis of this rubbish. But it's the lies and the spin which last. Half of those on IB should be working.
And another piece has popped up on the Telegraph's website. Apparently Grayling has been "forced to tighten the rules ..... to get more people off benefits and back into work". He says that he will "redesign the scheme so that those deemed originally too ill to join it would be made to do so". It's because WP providers are "crying out" for more hard-to-help claimants, and yet only 40,000 people on ESA have been pushed onto the programme. Well, of course WP profits depend on these "hard to help" people. Incredible.
One of the least reported contracts which pays A4e and the like is the Jobcentre Plus Support contract (JCPSC). Helpfully, A4e has published a piece on their website to supposedly explain what they do, in the 33 London boroughs where they are the prime contractors. But the only description is "provides employment training for people who have signed on at Jobcentre Plus and need further support in terms of improving their job searches and getting ready for working". All right, we understand what that means. But this is work which should, and could, be done by the Jobcentres. Contracting it out was a purely ideological move, handing work for profit to the private sector. While there's no talk at the moment of privatising the Jobcentres altogether, I wonder whether this would have been done by now if the climate had been different.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
News and not news
I am always delighted to see Private Eye keeping on the case, so I approve of the piece in the latest issue. They say that "A4e has found a new way to make money from the government's struggling Work Programme: claim bonuses for people who already have jobs." Let's be clear, it has always been the case, from the old New Deal onwards, that providers could claim job outcomes when people already had an interview lined up before starting the programme. It wasn't uncommon for someone to turn up on Monday saying that they had an interview later that day. Great, the provider would say, just sign this form and phone us to let us know how you got on. As long as the form was signed, the client had started the programme, and the outcome could be claimed. If the client got a job before starting the programme, then they signed off. What the Private Eye item claims is that A4e (and, presumably, other providers) are getting people onto the WP when they already have a job lined up but haven't yet started it. That allows A4e to claim the attachment fee and the outcome payment. The DWP thinks that's fine, as long as the client hasn't already started work. But why would anyone want to attach themselves to A4e if they have a job in the pipeline? Well, the Public Accounts Committee was given evidence that the company was offering £50 vouchers to the clients. A4e denied this; and indeed, it may well be that the £50 was just the standard "bonus" offered to clients to help get the outcome form signed. They're not denying, however, that they offer sums to cover clothing, travel expenses etc. So it seems worthwhile to the client; and is hugely worthwhile to A4e.
You may remember the bizarre situation of the Cabinet Office giving a contract to A4e to "explore the application of payment by results and social finance to troubled families." Who better to offer dispassionate advice on the subject? Well, they've now come up with their report. I wonder if anyone is still interested.
Just a word to people who want to leave comments. I've been getting a spate of comments which I can't publish because they name particular offices and even people. Edit those out, please.
You may remember the bizarre situation of the Cabinet Office giving a contract to A4e to "explore the application of payment by results and social finance to troubled families." Who better to offer dispassionate advice on the subject? Well, they've now come up with their report. I wonder if anyone is still interested.
Just a word to people who want to leave comments. I've been getting a spate of comments which I can't publish because they name particular offices and even people. Edit those out, please.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Narrowing choice
A couple of things came together yesterday to set me thinking about how the Work Programme is impacting on people's basic freedoms.
The first came in an email from a contact. He is not with A4e, and I won't mention the provider. He has come up against the generic CV, imposed on him by his "adviser". Given his qualifications and experience the client is far better qualified to design a document than this employee, but the company has given out a template and has to stick to it. The client is afraid that it will damage his prospects of getting a job. Of course, when he sends out applications off his own bat he can enclose his own CV. But the problem now is that the companies appear to be sending out CVs to employers without the knowledge or consent of the clients. And we know that these generic CVs end up in the bin.
That leads me to an article I found on the People Management website. It starts by saying that it's too early to judge the success of the Work Programme. But it goes on to describe what it sees as a success story. The provider is Ingeus. They have a contract with TNT Post, which has taken on 90 staff through the WP. The TNT chap says, "We've found that they have developed a work ethic because they have attended the welfare-to-work courses to get them to a job-ready state.” Think about what that implies. They didn't have a "work ethic" before. It gets worse. "Development continues once they are in post because the Ingeus 'work adviser' – who sits within TNT’s recruitment team – maintains the personal relationship. 'She supports each person throughout their training and continues to have one-to-ones with them once they have got the job. It’s like a life-coaching service for that person.'"
The first came in an email from a contact. He is not with A4e, and I won't mention the provider. He has come up against the generic CV, imposed on him by his "adviser". Given his qualifications and experience the client is far better qualified to design a document than this employee, but the company has given out a template and has to stick to it. The client is afraid that it will damage his prospects of getting a job. Of course, when he sends out applications off his own bat he can enclose his own CV. But the problem now is that the companies appear to be sending out CVs to employers without the knowledge or consent of the clients. And we know that these generic CVs end up in the bin.
That leads me to an article I found on the People Management website. It starts by saying that it's too early to judge the success of the Work Programme. But it goes on to describe what it sees as a success story. The provider is Ingeus. They have a contract with TNT Post, which has taken on 90 staff through the WP. The TNT chap says, "We've found that they have developed a work ethic because they have attended the welfare-to-work courses to get them to a job-ready state.” Think about what that implies. They didn't have a "work ethic" before. It gets worse. "Development continues once they are in post because the Ingeus 'work adviser' – who sits within TNT’s recruitment team – maintains the personal relationship. 'She supports each person throughout their training and continues to have one-to-ones with them once they have got the job. It’s like a life-coaching service for that person.'"
What could possibly be wrong with that? People who didn't have a job now have one. The company which will make money by keeping them in work is on hand to support them. So why am I uneasy? Ingeus isn't the only company to have contracts of this kind with employers. So it depends which provider you're sent to what job opportunities you'll get. And the amount of control you can exercise over your life shrinks inexorably. You would be right to feel that you're just a commodity, to be bought and sold.
Friday, 20 July 2012
Openness
Two bits of news which could, loosely, come under the heading of openness.
The Guardian reports more "chaos" around an outsourcing company which could have a bearing on the behaviour of companies like A4e. The story is about Atos and its fitness-for-work tests. I hadn't realised that last year claimants were given the right to record their assessments so that they could ensure that their details were correctly registered. Thinking to save on the costs of all those appeals, the government told Atos to equip themselves with recorders. The firm has complied by buying just 11 (that's eleven). And most of those are broken. Chris Grayling thinks that's okay. However, if it's officially permitted (if very difficult) to record Atos assessments, maybe that opens the door to recording encounters with other companies which can have a very damaging impact on clients' lives.
The Exaro site reports that the Public Accounts Committee is demanding greater openness in outsourced public services contracts. They want "all data" disclosing, and for the companies (and charities) to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. At the moment all the stuff we should know is covered by "commercial confidentiality". The PAC's Chair, Margaret Hodge, cites the current G4S fiasco, and the fact that we don't know what penalty clauses were in the contract. While some MPs and civil servants like the idea, I'm doubtful whether this will get anywhere. There are simply too many vested interests.
The Guardian reports more "chaos" around an outsourcing company which could have a bearing on the behaviour of companies like A4e. The story is about Atos and its fitness-for-work tests. I hadn't realised that last year claimants were given the right to record their assessments so that they could ensure that their details were correctly registered. Thinking to save on the costs of all those appeals, the government told Atos to equip themselves with recorders. The firm has complied by buying just 11 (that's eleven). And most of those are broken. Chris Grayling thinks that's okay. However, if it's officially permitted (if very difficult) to record Atos assessments, maybe that opens the door to recording encounters with other companies which can have a very damaging impact on clients' lives.
The Exaro site reports that the Public Accounts Committee is demanding greater openness in outsourced public services contracts. They want "all data" disclosing, and for the companies (and charities) to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. At the moment all the stuff we should know is covered by "commercial confidentiality". The PAC's Chair, Margaret Hodge, cites the current G4S fiasco, and the fact that we don't know what penalty clauses were in the contract. While some MPs and civil servants like the idea, I'm doubtful whether this will get anywhere. There are simply too many vested interests.
Thursday, 19 July 2012
Unemployment and privatisation
The unemployment figures which came out yesterday weren't over-hyped, even by the government. For an excellent analysis of what they mean, read Mark Easton on the BBC news site. Long-term unemployment is rising inexorably, which shows that the Work Programme isn't doing what it was supposed to do. But no one is really asking why.
The G4S fiasco has opened up a debate about the whole privatisation project. We're still not entirely clear what went wrong, but it was a disaster waiting to happen. It must be galling for A4e that the company is routinely linked with G4S as an example of the dangers of outsourcing. But will the lessons be learned? There's a very thoughtful piece in the New Statesman by Rick Muir, and another in the Guardian by Seamus Milne. Here are my observations, for what they're worth.
One of my earliest concerns when I started examining A4e was how quickly one company could drive out the competition. The bigger the contract, the more likely this is to happen. And when everything is privatised, where do you go when things go wrong? When the public sector no longer exists, you can't take a service back in-house. Olympic security now depends on the army and the police. But my pension is now run by Capita. What happens if they screw up? Serco runs an out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall which has become so poor that they've been ordered to improve it. What happens if they can't? Three companies - Serco, G4S and Capita - now run vast numbers of services in this country. You and I have no control over them. It is no longer a case of deciding that private profit is a better motivator than public service. The politicians decided that long ago. It's no coincidence that many of the politicians have connections with these companies. Perhaps it takes a huge mess like that which G4S has put us in to focus minds.
Your thoughts, please.
The G4S fiasco has opened up a debate about the whole privatisation project. We're still not entirely clear what went wrong, but it was a disaster waiting to happen. It must be galling for A4e that the company is routinely linked with G4S as an example of the dangers of outsourcing. But will the lessons be learned? There's a very thoughtful piece in the New Statesman by Rick Muir, and another in the Guardian by Seamus Milne. Here are my observations, for what they're worth.
One of my earliest concerns when I started examining A4e was how quickly one company could drive out the competition. The bigger the contract, the more likely this is to happen. And when everything is privatised, where do you go when things go wrong? When the public sector no longer exists, you can't take a service back in-house. Olympic security now depends on the army and the police. But my pension is now run by Capita. What happens if they screw up? Serco runs an out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall which has become so poor that they've been ordered to improve it. What happens if they can't? Three companies - Serco, G4S and Capita - now run vast numbers of services in this country. You and I have no control over them. It is no longer a case of deciding that private profit is a better motivator than public service. The politicians decided that long ago. It's no coincidence that many of the politicians have connections with these companies. Perhaps it takes a huge mess like that which G4S has put us in to focus minds.
Your thoughts, please.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Contracts and figures
News that A4e didn't win a contract, but it raises more concerns about the whole privatisation project. There has been talk for some time of privatising the Probation Service, but one of the first steps comes in London, where a contract has been awarded for supervising people doing community service as a punishment. The contract went to Serco - one of the three huge companies (with G4S and Capita) which run more and more of our public services. The two failed bidders were Sodexo and A4e. All three companies teamed up with a Probation Trust or something similar to tender for the work. In A4e's case the partner was Mitie. I hadn't heard of them, but a bit of googling reveals that Mitie and A4e joined forces in January 2011 to form what they called com:pact specifically to bid for community payback contracts. They already run the MITIE Enterprise Centre, doing skills training at Hollesley Bay Prison and YOI in Suffolk. So it looks like the Probation Service is being privatised bit by bit, and A4e will get its share of the cake.
A few snippets of news. The first, in the Telegraph, tells us that the numbers of paupers' funerals are increasing as more applications for funeral grants are being turned down. The grant only covers less than half the cost of a funeral, but with more impoverished people claiming it and being turned down councils are having to bury more people at their own cost. The poor are stripped of their dignity even in death.
Then there's Iain Duncan Smith's proud boast that the benefits cap is already "encouraging" people into work. There's a straightforward account in the Independent. Note the wonderfully round numbers. Of the people who would be affected by the cap, 1,700 have found work and 5,000 have "indicated they would like to receive support to get back into employment". The cap hasn't yet come into force, yet IDS would have us believe that the prospect is already persuading loads of people to get a job (and, of course, there are lots of jobs available). Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog was sceptical. They ascertained that 58,000 people were told in may that their benefits would be capped at £26,000 a year. The Jobcentres have tracked those and report that just under 3% of them have gone into work and another 9% have asked for help to get work. But as Factcheck points out, there is nothing to prove that one follows from the other. There are no figures for the numbers who would have got work anyway. So IDS is making it up - again.
A third piece of news which has been mangled by the right-wing press for their own purposes is a suggestion that the Human Rights Act should cover "socio-economic rights". Here's the Daily Mail's interpretation; the Express used the word "spongers" in its headline. What it boils down to is that there would be a guaranteed minimum income. That's hardly new. It used to be called the "personal allowance", and it was what you got as "income support" if you had no other income. It didn't include things like housing benefit. Governments eroded that and eventually ditched it. It started with changing emergency grants into loans. Then asylum seekers got less than everyone else. And now the concept has been abandoned altogether. There is a real debate to be had on these proposals. But don't hold your breath.
A few snippets of news. The first, in the Telegraph, tells us that the numbers of paupers' funerals are increasing as more applications for funeral grants are being turned down. The grant only covers less than half the cost of a funeral, but with more impoverished people claiming it and being turned down councils are having to bury more people at their own cost. The poor are stripped of their dignity even in death.
Then there's Iain Duncan Smith's proud boast that the benefits cap is already "encouraging" people into work. There's a straightforward account in the Independent. Note the wonderfully round numbers. Of the people who would be affected by the cap, 1,700 have found work and 5,000 have "indicated they would like to receive support to get back into employment". The cap hasn't yet come into force, yet IDS would have us believe that the prospect is already persuading loads of people to get a job (and, of course, there are lots of jobs available). Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog was sceptical. They ascertained that 58,000 people were told in may that their benefits would be capped at £26,000 a year. The Jobcentres have tracked those and report that just under 3% of them have gone into work and another 9% have asked for help to get work. But as Factcheck points out, there is nothing to prove that one follows from the other. There are no figures for the numbers who would have got work anyway. So IDS is making it up - again.
A third piece of news which has been mangled by the right-wing press for their own purposes is a suggestion that the Human Rights Act should cover "socio-economic rights". Here's the Daily Mail's interpretation; the Express used the word "spongers" in its headline. What it boils down to is that there would be a guaranteed minimum income. That's hardly new. It used to be called the "personal allowance", and it was what you got as "income support" if you had no other income. It didn't include things like housing benefit. Governments eroded that and eventually ditched it. It started with changing emergency grants into loans. Then asylum seekers got less than everyone else. And now the concept has been abandoned altogether. There is a real debate to be had on these proposals. But don't hold your breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)